Find wells near a point

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds important non-obvious behavior: 'Searches the geographically relevant sources unless state/source is given.' This explains default source selection and how optional filters change behavior, which is valuable beyond the schema. It does not describe response format, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action and use case are front-loaded, and the source-selection behavior is stated compactly. Every clause contributes to an agent's understanding of when and how to call the tool.

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 tool with six parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context: what it finds, how it selects sources, and when to use it. It does not describe return shape or result limits, but those are less critical for correct invocation given the detailed schema and defaults.

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 17%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the central parameters: lat/lon as the search point, radius_km as the search radius, and state/source as optional filters. The limit parameter is not mentioned, but its name and default make it inferable; the description still adds meaning for the most important parameters.

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'), a precise resource ('wells'), and a clear spatial criterion ('within a radius of a lat/lon point'). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_wells or get_well, and the example of pads/leases/project sites reinforces its intended scope.

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 a clear use case ('all wells on or around a pad, lease, or project site') and explains when to narrow by state/source ('unless state/source is given'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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