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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully indicates that results cover compliance, violations, inspections, and penalties, but it does not disclose matching behavior, result limits, pagination, or access requirements beyond the access_token schema note.

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 a single efficient sentence with the core search behavior front-loaded. The only minor ambiguity is the unexplained 'PRO.' prefix, but it does not waste space.

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 three-parameter search with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and result domain but leaves important call details unspecified, such as state format, name-matching semantics, and result 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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'name' can be a company or facility name and that 'state' is optional, but it does not specify state format or whether name matching is exact versus partial.

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 verb and resource: search EPA facilities by company/facility name with optional state. It is clearly distinguishable from a generic check or area report, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling 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 phrase 'by company/facility name (+ optional state)' implies when this tool is appropriate, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of epa_check or area_report, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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