lookup_gom_protraction_area

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the return contents (water depths, Wilcox/Miocene trends, host platform hubs), which implies a read-only lookup, but it says nothing about auth requirements, coverage limits, or failure modes for invalid area codes.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Slightly overloaded with parenthetical enumerations, but every clause is informative.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description adequately conveys both the scope and the nature of the returned data. Only minor gaps remain (validation behavior for unknown codes, data freshness).

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 100%, so the single 'area_code' parameter is already fully documented with examples in the schema. The description's enumeration of area codes adds little beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Looks up') and a precise resource (BOEM OCS deepwater protraction areas in the Gulf of Mexico), enumerating the covered area codes. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which concern regulatory classification and tieback 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?

The description explains what the tool returns but never says when to use it versus the siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the subject matter.

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