Get Well Production

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it is safe. The description adds valuable behavioral context: BETA coverage, limited well-level histories, availability of multiple views, and the requirement for an add-on/plan. These details go beyond the annotations and help the agent set expectations, though no rate limits or error behavior are disclosed. No contradiction exists.

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 moderately long (around 100 words) but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, coverage caveat, view list, usage scenarios, and access requirements. The use of parentheses and a compact enumeration keeps it structured. It is thoroughly front-loaded with the main verb and resource in the first sentence.

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 multi-view tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential ground: data coverage, view semantics, required parameters per view, and plan prerequisites. It doesn't spell out response formats, but the view summaries provide enough for an agent to reason about expected outputs. Minor gaps include lack of error/edge-case behavior, but overall it's complete enough for safe invocation.

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% coverage and already describes each parameter, including the enum values and dependencies. The description reinforces these by explaining what each view returns (e.g., 'monthly history for one state' for the state view, 'highest-output wells' for top_producers). While not adding new parameter syntax, it adds semantic richness beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 become a 4.

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 the tool's function: 'Get US oil & gas well production data' with explicit scope and a BETA coverage caveat. It enumerates seven distinct views, distinguishing it from sibling tools like opa_get_well_permits or opa_lookup_well. The purpose is specific, verifiable, and not a tautology.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when the user asks about oil/gas production volumes by state or well, top producing wells, or drill-to-production cycle times.' It also warns about incomplete US well-level production, implying when it's not suitable, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide a clear when-not-to-use list. This is a strong 4, missing only explicit alternatives.

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