Get a Detailed Facility Report for one facility by its EPA Registry ID: name, address, permits held, and per-statute (CAA/CWA/RCRA/SDWA) compliance and inspection summaries. Use epa_facility_search first to obtain the registry_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| registry_id | Yes | EPA Registry ID (FRS ID), the numeric facility identifier returned by epa_facility_search (e.g. '110001136271'). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the report contents and per-statute summaries, but does not go further to describe response format, possible size, or error behavior. This is adequate given the simple read-only nature of the tool.
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 sentences with no filler. The core action and payload are in the first sentence, and the prerequisite lookup is in the second, making it easy to parse and act on.
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 one-parameter read-only lookup with rich annotations and a fully-described input schema, the description is complete. It names exactly what the call returns, what input is needed, and how to obtain that input. There is no output schema, but the description's explicit list of report contents is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.
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%: the registry_id parameter is already explained as the EPA Registry ID returned by epa_facility_search, with an example. The description repeats the 'EPA Registry ID' concept and the search prerequisite, but adds no meaningful detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 starts with a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('Detailed Facility Report for one facility by its EPA Registry ID'). It enumerates the content categories (name, address, permits, and CAA/CWA/RCRA/SDWA compliance and inspection summaries), which clearly distinguishes it from search-oriented siblings like epa_facility_search.
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 explicitly tells the agent to call epa_facility_search first to obtain the registry_id, establishing a clear prerequisite and workflow. It also scopes the tool to a single facility by ID, but it does not explicitly contrast this with related tools like epa_facility_compliance or epa_enforcement_search.
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.
Many tools overlap heavily across domains: caselaw_search vs court_case_search vs court_opinion_search, caselaw_citation_lookup vs court_citation_resolver, and a cluster of company due-diligence tools (company_trust_check, counterparty_risk_score, entity_dossier, issuer_diligence_dossier, kyb_aml_evidence_case_file) that all screen a company for sanctions/risk/standing. With 290 tools, an agent will frequently face multiple equally plausible choices for the same user intent.
The vast majority of tools follow a clean domain-prefix + snake_case pattern (census_, eia_, fmcsa_, npi_, cfpb_, etc.), but there are notable exceptions: entity_resolve and resolve_entity are reversed duplicates, reg_search (Federal Register) sits next to reg_cfr_search (CFR) with confusingly similar names, and carrier_monitor_recheck deviates from the carrier_vetting_* family.
290 tools is an extreme count under any rubric, far exceeding even the 50+ threshold for the lowest score. While the group-filtering mechanism and meta-tools like list_tool_groups and search_available_datasets mitigate the practical burden, the raw surface is still massively oversized for an agent to select from accurately and efficiently.
For a read-only data-aggregation server, coverage is remarkably comprehensive across 59 domains, and generic fallbacks like cdc_dataset_query, eia_series_lookup, fred_observations, and bls_series prevent most dead ends. Minor gaps exist (a single GitHub tool, demo-only property_lookup coverage, no write/update operations anywhere), but the stated data-access purpose is well served.