check_well_anticollision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool computes distance and identifies closest approach (non-destructive), but does not mention permissions, side effects, or limitations. Adequate but could be more explicit.

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 concise: a one-line summary, a one-line elaboration, then a parameter list. No fluff, but the parameter list could be formatted with better separation for readability.

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 the tool's purpose, operation, and all parameters. An output schema exists, so return values are not required. However, it does not mention that well1_start_north/east default to 0 or any assumptions about well1's reference point, which might be useful.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description includes an Args section explaining each of the 9 parameters, including units and defaults (e.g., unit default 'feet'). This significantly adds meaning beyond the schema alone.

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 the tool checks separation between two wells at closest approach, computing center-to-center distance and identifying the closest point. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on single well calculations or economics.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. While the purpose is clear, there is no explicit context for when it is appropriate or when to avoid using it.

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