Get Well Permits

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already in annotations, the description adds value by flagging the account entitlement requirement and noting that returns are permits with optional aggregation. No contradiction with annotations. It stops short of describing response details or error behavior, but for a simple read-only tool this is acceptable.

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 compact and front-loads the core function before usage and entitlement notes. The sentence about opa_get_plans and the authoritative API response is somewhat tangential, but it does not bloat the definition or obscure the main purpose.

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 read-only tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the definition covers when to use it, what it returns at a high level, and an important access constraint. The lack of explicit return-field or pagination details is a minor gap given the simple enum-driven views.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and the view/state/operator properties already carry detailed descriptions, defaults, and enum options. The top-level description only repeats the aggregation concept ('filtered/aggregated by state or by operator'), so it adds little semantic value beyond the schema. 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?

The opening sentence pinpoints the resource and operation: 'Get the latest US oil & gas well drilling permit data.' It also specifies the main output shape ('available permits, optionally filtered/aggregated by state or by operator'). However, the top-level description does not explicitly contrast this with the closely related opa_search_well_permits; the distinction is only hinted at in a parameter description.

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 gives clear trigger conditions: 'Use when the user asks about well permits, new drilling permits, permitting activity, or upstream permit trends,' and states the access prerequisite ('Requires an eligible account entitlement'). The description lacks an explicit 'do not use for richer searches' exclusion, though opa_search_well_permits is named in the schema.

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