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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the geocoding behavior via US Census and the types of records, but it does not mention what happens if both address and coordinates are provided, output format, pagination, or potential errors. This is partial disclosure.

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 two concise sentences: the first states purpose and scope, the second gives input instructions. No fluff or redundant content; every phrase 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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main aspects: what records are returned, how to specify location, and the radius parameter (implicitly). It lacks details on default/max radius and return structure, but the schema covers those, making it adequate for a simple query tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the address geocoding mechanism and explicitly stating that address and lat/lon are alternatives, which clarifies the conditional requirement not present in the schema.

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's function: retrieving federal environmental records (Superfund/NPL, TRI, noncomplying facilities) within a radius of a US location. It names specific data sources and distinguishes itself from the sibling drinking_water tool by domain.

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 when to use the tool (for environmental records near a location) and provides usage instructions for the two input modes (address or lat/lon). It does not explicitly mention the sibling or state exclusions, but the context is clear.

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