Find covered US cities by name, optionally within a state. Returns counts + the page URL for each.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| state | No | Optional 2-letter state code, e.g. 'TX'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it returns counts and page URLs, and implies no side effects. No contradictions.
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 sentences, front-loaded with action and output. No unnecessary words.
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?
Provides core purpose and output, but lacks explanation of 'covered', default/max limit, query syntax, or pagination. Adequate for a simple search tool but incomplete.
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 coverage is low (33%), only state has a description. The tool description clarifies that query is a city name, but does not explain limit or provide details on query patterns (e.g., partial match).
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?
Clearly states the tool finds covered US cities by name, with optional state filter, and describes output (counts + page URL). This differentiates it from siblings like find_cities or list_state_cities.
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 implies usage for name-based city search with optional state, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_cities or list_state_cities.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: `search` and `search_cities` both find cities by name, and `fetch` and `get_city_water` both retrieve EPA records for a city. This creates ambiguity for an agent deciding which tool to use.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_cities, get_city_water), but `fetch` and `search` are single-word imperatives without an object, breaking the consistency slightly.
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for a data retrieval domain. Each tool has a distinct role, though some overlap could be consolidated, the count is reasonable.
Core operations (search cities, fetch records, compare, list states) are covered, but the redundancy between `fetch`/`get_city_water` suggests unclear boundaries, and there is no tool to search by water system name or list all contaminants.