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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns location, type, status, cumulative production, and technical data, and mentions the dataset size (~50,000 wells). However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, pagination, rate limits, or default result limits, which are useful for a query tool.

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?

The description is three concise sentences: it front-loads the purpose, lists return types, and gives dataset scale. Every sentence provides unique information with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

With 8 optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description lists return fields and dataset size but omits operational details like default limit behavior, pagination, or whether filters are combinable. It is adequate but leaves room for clarification, especially given the absence of an output schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some high-level context (e.g., 'cumulative production' relates to con_produccion, dataset size aids limit interpretation) but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search and filter') and a clear resource ('Argentine oil & gas wells'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other datasets (investments, prices, production, trade). It also states what data is returned, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 for well-related queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like query_production or query_investments. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided, though the resource context offers some inference.

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