Get Well Permits

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

The description discloses that it returns the latest permits and supports filtering/aggregation by state or operator. It also reveals an access requirement (add-on/enterprise plan) not covered by annotations. With readOnlyHint already present, the description adds useful functional context, though it doesn't detail response format or pagination.

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?

Three sentences with front-loaded purpose, clear use-case guidance, and a concise summary of return behavior and requirements. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 read-only tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, return behavior, and prerequisites. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly, especially with the alternative tool reference in the parameter description.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The main description only summarizes parameter behavior ('optionally filtered/aggregated by state or by operator') without adding new detail. The operator parameter description does add guidance about an alternative tool, but that is within the schema, not the tool description, and the main description adds minimal semantic value.

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 it retrieves US oil & gas well drilling permit data, with a specific verb and resource. It also specifies the scope ('latest') and available filters/aggregations, effectively distinguishing it from other well-related tools like production or activity. The sibling search tool is differentiated via the operator parameter description.

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 explicitly provides use cases ('when the user asks about well permits, new drilling permits, permitting activity, or upstream permit trends') and a prerequisite (well-permits add-on or enterprise plan). The operator parameter description recommends 'opa_search_well_permits' for richer filters, offering clear 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.