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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the tool returns 'violations and related compliance summaries' and requires a Registry ID, which clarifies the input prerequisite. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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. It leads with the core purpose, then immediately gives the key parameter options and prerequisite. Every sentence 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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the description is largely complete: it states what the tool returns, the media choices, and the required input. It does not detail output structure or pagination, but with no output schema and openWorldHint true, this is a minor gap rather than a blocking omission.

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 the schema already explains both parameters. The description reinforces the media enum values and the Registry ID requirement but adds little new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and identifies the resource: a facility's air or water violations plus related compliance summaries, with explicit statute references (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act). This clearly communicates the tool's domain, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like epa_facility_compliance or epa_enforcement_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 gives clear operational guidance: set media to 'air', 'water', or 'all' and provide an EPA Registry ID. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over related EPA siblings or when not to use it, leaving the choice to inference from the topic.

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