petropt/petro-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool calculates but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, numerical precision, unit validation, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a calculation tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Perfectly structured with purpose statement, formula, and parameter definitions in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information. The description is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It provides the formula and parameter semantics, which is sufficient for a calculation tool. However, without annotations and with behavioral gaps, it could benefit from more context about error conditions or assumptions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear definitions for all 5 parameters (area_acres, thickness_ft, porosity, sw, bg), including units and valid ranges where applicable. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific calculation being performed ('Calculate volumetric Original Gas In Place (OGIP)') and provides the exact formula. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'volumetric_ooip' by specifying this is for gas rather than oil.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context through the formula and parameter definitions, suggesting this tool is for reservoir engineering calculations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'calculate_eur' or 'volumetric_ooip', nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.