Find covered US cities by name, optionally within a state. Returns counts + the page URL for each.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| state | No | Optional 2-letter state code, e.g. 'TX'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds return details (counts, page URL) but no further behavioral traits. 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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action and scope. No wasted words; every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, 1 required) and no output schema, the description adequately covers core functionality. However, 'covered' is not defined, and connection to sibling context could be stronger.
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?
Description explains that 'state' is optional and gives an example format. With schema coverage at 33% (only state has description), the description adds meaning for 'state' but does not mention 'query' or 'limit' beyond their schema definitions.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'Find', resource 'covered US cities', and output 'counts + page URL'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying scope ('covered US cities') and return format, though not explicitly differentiating from similar tools like 'find_cities'.
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?
Indicates optional state filtering ('optionally within a state') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings such as 'find_cities' or 'list_state_cities'. No examples or use cases provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Some tools have overlapping purposes: search and search_cities both find cities by name, and fetch and get_city_water both retrieve detailed records for a city. However, descriptions differentiate them (e.g., search returns an id, search_cities returns counts and URL), so an agent can often pick correctly, but confusion is possible.
Tool names mix conventions: single-word verbs (fetch, search), verb_noun (compare_cities, find_cities), and noun_noun (coverage_stats). There is no consistent pattern, and similar tools have different naming styles (e.g., search vs search_cities).
10 tools is well-suited for querying EPA tap water data. Each tool serves a distinct purpose within the domain, and the count is neither too few (limiting functionality) nor too many (overwhelming).
The tool surface covers key operations: searching cities, retrieving records, comparing, filtering, explaining contaminants, and coverage stats. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no way to search contaminants by partial name), but core workflows are supported.