Get Well Production

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: BETA coverage limitations, state-level vs well-level availability, account entitlement requirements, and the API response being authoritative. It does not fully describe response structure or pagination, but with readOnlyHint=true the bar is lower and the coverage caveats are meaningful.

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 dense but every sentence contributes: scope, coverage limitations, view enumeration, use cases, and access guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and caveat before listing details, and avoids redundant 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?

Given three parameters, no output schema, and no required fields, the description provides all essential context: what each view returns, which parameters are needed, when to use the tool, and how to handle account entitlement. An agent can select and invoke this tool correctly without additional information.

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 already provides 100% coverage, describing each parameter and how the view field controls behavior. The description repeats similar information without adding new meaning beyond what the schema already states, 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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving US oil & gas well production data, and distinguishes its scope with a specific BETA caveat about partial coverage. It enumerates the available views, so an agent knows exactly what resource this tool exposes and how it differs from production-adjacent tools like opa_get_well_permits or opa_lookup_well.

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 states when to use the tool: for production volumes by state or well, top producers, and cycle times. It also routes users to opa_get_plans for access and pricing, providing clear contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly list exclusions or when to prefer alternative production-data tools.

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