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

Beyond what annotations provide, it discloses concrete side effects: launching a bound Apify Actor with the caller's token, possible Apify usage cost, a 60-second wait, a 1,000-row cap, and no modification of government records. This gives the agent essential operational context for a call that is not purely read-only despite not altering government data.

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: two sentences front-load the purpose and then list the invocation behaviors that matter. The phrase 'keeping environmental safety UNKNOWN' is unexplained jargon, which keeps it from being fully crisp.

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?

It covers cost, duration, and output-size expectations, which is valuable for an external Actor invocation. But with nine optional parameters, no required field, and no output schema, the description alone is not enough to tell an agent exactly how to construct a query or interpret the returned evidence.

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 only 44%, and the tool description adds no parameter-specific guidance. It mentions boundedness and row limits but does not clarify how to choose among zip, city, state, facility name, address, or maxCandidates, leaving most param semantics to 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 states a specific resource and action: a bounded EPA ECHO facility query that preserves identity, compliance, inspection, and enforcement evidence. It is more specific than the title alone but does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools such as the evidence gateway, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 a clear use-case signal ('Use for a bounded EPA ECHO facility query') and warns about Apify usage consumption, which helps an agent decide whether the cost is acceptable. However, it does not name any sibling or state when not to use this tool, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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