Get US Rig Counts

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context: the Baker Hughes source, exact returned metrics, the no-parameter requirement, and the account entitlement caveat. 'The API response is authoritative' complements the openWorldHint. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and source, the second covers usage triggers and outputs, and the third addresses access and the alternative tool. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, trigger intents, return fields, and access prerequisites. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly. Additional details such as update frequency would be nice but are not necessary.

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 input schema has zero properties and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description confirms 'No parameters needed,' which is redundant with the schema but harmless given there are no parameters to explain.

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 verb ('Get'), the resource ('latest US oil and gas rig count data'), and the data source (Baker Hughes), and lists the returned fields. It is distinguishable from price, storage, and inventory siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from overlapping drilling/well-activity siblings like opa_get_drilling or opa_get_well_activity.

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 explicitly provides user-intent triggers ('asks about drilling activity, rig counts, or oil field operations') and points to opa_get_plans for access and pricing. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the guidance is sufficient for a simple no-parameter tool.

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