Search Well Permits

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

The description discloses several behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations: it checks a state-health gate and fails closed for unavailable/attention states, and it always returns freshness, date coverage, source provenance, and staleness/degradation caveats. It also explicitly notes that operator and county searches are separate. This is rich behavioral transparency.

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 and each sentence serves a distinct purpose: purpose/scope, behavioral safety/metadata guarantees, and usage constraint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids any filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by mentioning that results include freshness, date coverage, provenance, and caveats. It also covers the state-health gate and separate-search constraint. However, it omits pagination details (page/per_page parameters), which is relevant for a search tool. Still, it is sufficiently complete for tool selection.

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?

Schema description coverage is 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds the 'county or operator' and 'optional permit-date range' context and reinforces that they cannot be combined, but it does not provide substantial new meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. It meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 opens with 'Search well permits in one US state by county or operator and optional permit-date range,' which specifies a clear verb (search), resource (well permits), scope (one US state), and filter dimensions. It distinguishes from siblings like opa_get_well_permits and opa_lookup_well by emphasizing the search-by-county/operator behavior and the single-state constraint.

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 usage context by stating that operator and county filters cannot be combined and require separate searches. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives like opa_get_well_permits or opa_lookup_well, nor does it mention any exclusions. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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