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

Annotations already mark this read-only/idempotent, and the description adds meaningful non-obvious behavior: it is a keyless public RRC record, it returns location+type only, and it excludes operator/production/permit-date data. This gives an agent a clear accuracy boundary without contradicting the 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 core behavior is front-loaded and the return payload is specified efficiently. A little extra domain color (Permian/Eagle Ford) is useful but not strictly needed for invocation, keeping it slightly above average but not maximal.

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, the description compensates by listing the key returned fields and the type breakdown. It also covers the address-to-coordinates prerequisite and data limitations. A more exact response shape or empty-result behavior would push it to 5, but nothing essential for a basic call is missing.

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%, and schema entries already explain lat/lon, limit, radius with defaults and max values. The description's 'longitude/latitude and a radius' does not add information beyond what the schema provides, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource—'Find Texas oil & gas wells near a location'—and enumerates the returned fields (API number, well number, type/status, type breakdown). It is unmistakably distinct from geocoding and Oklahoma-well siblings by naming Texas and the RRC public map.

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?

It gives a concrete workflow instruction: 'Use geocode_address first to turn a street address into coordinates.' It also lists what the layer does not contain (operator, production, permit dates), implicitly steering agents away when those are needed, though it does not name a specific alternative tool.

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