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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the data quality limitation (approximate DUC list due to missing completion status), lists the returned fields, and notes the legacy alias for daysSinceSpud. This provides useful context about the tool's behavior and output, though it does not mention potential side effects (none expected) or rate limits.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the primary purpose first and then adds the DUC definition and output field details. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though the sentence is somewhat long and could be split for readability. No unnecessary filler.

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 simple list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what the tool returns (list of wells with specific fields), the data caveat (approximate), and the geographic scope. However, it omits details about the limit parameter's effect on pagination or result size, and does not clarify whether the results are sorted. Given the simplicity, this is nearly complete.

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 schema has zero descriptions for its parameters, and the description does not compensate. The state parameter is implied by 'Texas or Oklahoma', but the limit parameter is never explained (e.g., it controls the maximum number of records returned). The description adds no detail about default values, limits, or how parameters affect results, leaving the agent to infer from schema constraints alone.

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 verb (Get) and resource (drilled-but-uncompleted well inventory) with geographic scope (Texas or Oklahoma). It also defines the DUC criteria (spud date but no reported first production), which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_recently_spudded_wells or get_new_producing_wells, so differentiation is only implicit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, such as 'for recently spudded wells use get_recently_spudded_wells' or 'for producing wells use get_new_producing_wells'. The only usage-related note is that the list is approximate, but that is a caveat rather than selection guidance.

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