Search global energy projects (GEM)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses that filters are ANDed case-insensitive substrings, that data is local and offline, and that results are project/field level rather than well level. It does not describe response format or any limits, but the core query behavior is transparent.

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 clause earns its place: data source, tracker coverage, scope, filter behavior, performance characteristics, and citation requirement. The core purpose and exclusion are front-loaded before the supporting details.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: data provenance, geographic coverage, project-level scope, match semantics, offline behavior, and citation obligations. It stops short of explaining result fields or how limit/radius parameters shape output, but it is detailed enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The schema already documents five of nine parameters with useful examples, and the description adds general filter semantics with 'Filters are ANDed, case-insensitive substrings'. Still, the main description does little to clarify limit, longitude, or radius_km on its own, so it only partially compensates for the 56% schema coverage.

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 action and resource: 'Search bundled Global Energy Monitor tracker data' and enumerates the exact trackers and coverage areas. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the well-level sibling tools by saying 'Project/field level, NOT well level', so an agent can tell it apart from search_wells and wells_near.

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 gives clear context on when this tool is appropriate: for project/field-level searches over bundled GEM geothermal and oil & gas data, and it explicitly excludes well-level use. However, it never names sibling alternatives such as search_wells or raw_query, so the when-not guidance is implied rather than fully explicit.

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