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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the geographic scope (Texas or Oklahoma) and the data fields returned, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention whether the tool is read-only (likely, but not stated), how 'recent' is defined (e.g., last 30 days), or any rate limits or pagination behavior. The description adds some behavioral context but not enough to fully compensate for missing annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core function (get recently spudded wells), specifies the geographic scope, lists the returned fields, and adds a brief use-case rationale. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague wording.

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-retrieval tool with only two parameters (one required enum, one optional integer), the description covers the essential context: what it returns, where, and why it's useful. It doesn't have an output schema, so the description's mention of returned fields (operator, county, formation, spud date) is valuable. The main gap is the lack of a time window definition for 'recently', but this is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. The description mentions 'Texas or Oklahoma' which maps to the 'state' enum, and 'recently spudded' implies the 'limit' parameter controls how many wells are returned. However, it doesn't explain the exact meaning of 'limit' (e.g., max number of wells) or the default behavior. The description adds some meaning beyond the schema (e.g., the real-time signal context) but doesn't fully document the parameters.

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 tool's function: retrieving recently spudded wells in Texas or Oklahoma, with specific fields (operator, county, formation, spud date). It also explains the real-world use case ('real-time signal of where active drilling is happening'), which helps an agent understand the tool's intent. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_new_producing_wells by focusing on spudding (drilling start) rather than production.

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 when to use this tool: when you need a real-time signal of active drilling starts, as opposed to production or permits. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of 'recently spudded' and 'active drilling' gives clear usage context. It could be improved by explicitly contrasting with get_new_producing_wells or get_state_recent_permits, but the current wording is sufficient for an agent to infer the right scenario.

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