Look Up Well by API Number

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

Beyond the readOnly and openWorld annotations, the description discloses that it uses promoted lifecycle summaries, returns specific fields, includes monthly history for 14-digit API numbers when available, and fails closed for unpromoted or ambiguous records. This adds substantial behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence contributes useful information without 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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by listing return fields (operator, county, lifecycle dates, cumulative production, evidence, monthly history) and explaining conditional behavior and fail-closed handling. It is complete for this lookup tool.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds a minor nuance about state disambiguation across source contexts, but does not materially exceed the schema's own explanations.

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 uses the specific verb 'Look up', identifies the resource as a well, and specifies the API number formats. It distinguishes from sibling tools by stating it returns promoted lifecycle summaries and conditional monthly production history, making its scope clear.

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 clarifies when to use the tool (to look up a well by API number) and provides context about optional state disambiguation and fail-closed behavior. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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