Get US Rig Counts

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the response shape (single total with region and observation date), specific data limitations (no oil/gas split, no prior-week delta), and the account entitlement requirement. It also notes the API response is authoritative. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond readOnlyHint and openWorldHint.

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 concise and front-loaded, opening with the core purpose and immediately following with usage guidance. Every sentence adds value: what it returns, what it lacks, when to use an alternative, and access requirements. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what is returned, what is missing, when to use an alternative, and entitlement guidance. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to invoke it or route elsewhere.

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 has zero parameters and the description explicitly states 'No parameters needed.' Since there are no parameters to explain, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter-related detail.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the latest US rig count (Baker Hughes)'. It also distinguishes itself from opa_get_drilling by noting this source carries no oil/gas split and no prior-week delta, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 explicit use conditions: 'Use when the user asks about drilling activity, rig counts, or oil field operations.' It also names the alternative, opa_get_drilling, for more detailed rig data, and directs users to opa_get_plans for access and pricing. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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