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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds the return shape and the filtering behavior of violations=1, but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or data freshness beyond what the schema covers.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core resource and return fields are front-loaded and the filtering hint is placed last. Slightly terse but nothing is wasted.

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 list tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers the resource, return fields, and the key filter. No output schema exists but the return fields are stated, leaving only minor gaps like pagination behavior.

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 all four parameters (limit, owner, state, violations) are already documented. The description restates the violations flag semantics without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 resource (EPA-regulated facilities owned by a company) plus what it returns (location, NAICS, compliance status). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not name or contrast with any sibling tool, so an agent must infer its niche among the many search tools.

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 gives one usage hint — set violations=1 to narrow to violating facilities — but does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. Usage is implied through the parameter hint rather than a when/when-not statement.

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