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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond those annotations: the RRC source is 'keyless' (no auth key expected), results include a type/status breakdown, and the layer intentionally excludes operator, production, and permit-date fields. This gives an agent a clear model of what the tool can and cannot do.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently covers return fields, prerequisites, geographic scope, and exclusions. Every sentence adds useful operational information and the length is proportionate to the tool's complexity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the burden of explaining return contents: it lists API well number, well number, type/status examples, and the type breakdown. It also covers the coordinate prerequisite, source coverage, and data limitations, making the description complete enough for correct invocation in most realistic workflows.

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 schema already fully documents lat, lon, radius_km, and limit with defaults and bounds. The description reinforces that the tool takes a location and radius but adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Find'), a concrete resource ('Texas oil & gas wells'), and a data source (Texas Railroad Commission public well map). It also enumerates the exact returned fields and distinguishes this from the Oklahoma-focused sibling ok_wells_search by emphasizing Texas and RRC.

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 gives clear workflow guidance: use geocode_address first when starting from a street address, and it clarifies that operator, production, and permit-date data are not available here. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as ok_wells_search for Oklahoma, but the Texas/RRC framing and the exclusion of richer well data provide solid context.

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