Get Recent Well Activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, establishing safety and open-world expectations. The description adds valuable behavioral context about explicit handling of non-available state-health records and partial results when the health index fails, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 despite its length; it leads with the core function and then covers important caveats. Each sentence adds value, with no redundancy or 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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the response contents, edge cases, and fallback behavior, making it complete enough for an agent to understand what it will receive and how to interpret warnings.

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 fully documents the 'days' parameter with a description of the activity window. The description does not add further detail beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage without needing compensation.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving US well-permit activity with specific breakdowns (state counts, operators, formations, permit types, weekly trend). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like opa_get_well_permits or opa_lookup_well, though it does not explicitly name them to differentiate.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as opa_get_well_permits or opa_search_well_permits. It implies usage for summary activity but does not state exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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