texas-rrc-wellbores

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discharges it: it discloses the auth profile (free, no API key), the non-mutating nature ('Returns no records'), and data-quality limits ('which parts of the source are NOT yet parsed'). Freshness and pricing are also surfaced, which an agent cannot infer from an empty schema.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero waste. The most decision-relevant facts (free, no key, no records, call before the search sibling) are all front-loaded before the detailed field list.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description fully covers what the agent needs: access requirements, the nature of the return (metadata, not records), the specific metadata categories, and routing to the companion search tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description correctly adds nothing about parameters because there is nothing to parameterize, keeping focus on the metadata payload.

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?

States a specific verb (describes) and resource (Texas RRC wellbore identity dataset), and enumerates the exact metadata returned: fields, row count, freshness, pricing, and unparsed source. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_texas_wellbores by noting it 'Returns no records' and directing the agent to call it first.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: 'Call this before search_texas_wellbores,' which names the alternative tool and the condition selecting it. Access guidance ('Free, no API key required') is also front-loaded, leaving nothing to inference about when this tool is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the 25-row free cap, the key requirement for offset/larger limits, and the exact failure mode (payment_required error with checkout URL). It still says nothing about pagination semantics or the return payload shape.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: capability first, then the free/paid boundary and its error behavior. No filler, though the filter enumeration is slightly list-like rather than prioritized.

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?

For a 10-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the critical gating behavior (row cap, key requirement, error contract) that an agent must plan around. It is still thin on parameter formats and on how results are ordered/returned.

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 0% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate. It maps most filters (district, county, API number, plugged, orphan-well hold, completion range, min depth) to plain-language meaning, but adds no type/format detail—e.g. county as integer FIPS, completion date string format—leaving real ambiguity.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search Texas oil and gas wellbore identities') and enumerates the filterable dimensions, so the agent knows exactly what this retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling describe_texas_wellbores, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear usage conditions: free tier supports up to 25 rows without a key, and exceeding 25 rows or using offset requires a key. It does not name the sibling tool as an alternative when the agent wants structure/metadata rather than rows, so exclusions are incomplete.

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