Get Drilling Activity

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses an account-entitlement requirement and states that the API response is authoritative. This adds useful behavioral context without contradicting the read-only annotation.

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?

Three sentences front-load the data returned, follow with the use case, and end with access guidance. No filler or repetition; every sentence contributes.

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 zero-parameter snapshot tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names every data category returned, states when to call it, and flags the entitlement requirement. An agent has enough to decide to invoke it and know what to expect.

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 declares zero parameters and the description covers 100% of the (empty) input schema, so parameter-level explanation is unnecessary. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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?

The description begins with a specific verb and resource—'Get a drilling activity snapshot'—and enumerates the exact contents (US/Canada/international rig counts, frac spread count, 30-day permits with by-state breakdown, DUC totals). This distinguishes it from narrower sibling tools such as opa_get_rig_counts or opa_get_well_permits by presenting a combined aggregate snapshot.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use when the user asks about drilling activity, rigs vs frac spreads, or upstream operations,' giving clear invocation triggers. It also routes entitlement/access questions to opa_get_plans, though it does not state when-not-to-use versus data-focused siblings like opa_get_rig_counts.

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