List operators matching a name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully reveals that results are exact, case-insensitive name strings, distinct, 'containing the search text', and grouped 'per source'. However, it does not clarify what 'per source' means, whether state is required, or what the response shape looks like.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then behavior, then usage guidance. The quoted examples are slightly long but earn their place by illustrating the tool's core warning that operator strings rarely match guesses.

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?

The description covers purpose, basic behavior, and a usage trigger, which is good for a simple lookup tool. However, without annotations or an output schema, the vague 'per source' wording and unaddressed state parameter leave meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to call it correctly.

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 only 50%; the description does not meaningfully explain the 'state' parameter beyond 'a state uses' and 'per source'. The 'name' parameter is already described in the schema, but the optional state parameter's role and default behavior remain unclear.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('exact operator name strings a state uses') and makes the domain concrete with real examples. It clearly differentiates this tool from sibling search_wells by focusing on operator name strings rather than well records.

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 gives a usage context: 'Use before search_wells when an operator search returns nothing.' It names an alternative and the condition for choosing this tool, though it does not discuss exclusions for other sibling tools.

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