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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing concrete side effects: it starts an Apify Actor with the caller's APIFY_TOKEN, may consume usage, blocks for up to 60 seconds, and does not modify government records. This is highly valuable because the annotations only mark it as non-read-only and non-idempotent without explaining why.

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?

Two dense sentences deliver purpose, scope, side effects, latency, result limits, and a clear exclusion without filler. The purpose is front-loaded and operational caveats follow logically.

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 tool with no output schema, the description usefully describes what evidence comes back (identity, compliance, inspection, enforcement), why environmental safety stays UNKNOWN, and the operational envelope. It could be more complete by translating the nine optional parameters into a clear selection strategy, though the input schema's root-level guidance fills part of that gap.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 44%, the tool description needed to compensate by explaining how the nine optional parameters relate to selecting a facility or bounding the query. It does not do so; it only repeats high-level notions of a bounded query and result limits. The schema has some root-level guidance, but the description itself adds little parameter-level meaning.

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 names a specific resource (EPA ECHO facility data) and a concrete action (bounded query), and enumerates what evidence it preserves: identity, compliance, inspection, and enforcement. It also explicitly excludes environmental safety conclusions, which makes its scope sharply distinguishable from sibling evidence 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 description explicitly says 'Use for a bounded EPA ECHO facility query' and gives practical constraints: Apify usage may be consumed, waits up to 60 seconds, and returns at most 1,000 rows. However, it does not name sibling tools or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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