well_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the core behavior — returning per-well KPI values — but it does not mention units, time range, calculation basis, read-only nature, or error behavior. This is minimally adequate but leaves material gaps.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the scope ('per-well') and then lists the key output fields efficiently. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 output schema presumably covers the return shape, but invocation context is incomplete: 'case_path' is unexplained, and no guidance distinguishes this tool from the many related summary and well tools. For a two-parameter tool with no annotations, the description should do more.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the two required parameters. It does not explain 'case_path' at all, and 'well' is only indirectly implied by 'per-well.' An agent has almost no semantic grounding for how to fill these arguments correctly.

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 clearly states that the tool produces per-well KPIs and enumerates the key output categories: oil/gas/water rates, BHP, and cumulative production. The 'per-well' scope helps distinguish it from field-level tools like field_summary, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'return.'

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of related siblings such as read_summary, list_wells, field_summary, or compare_summaries. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection cues beyond the vague 'per-well' signal.

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