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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that the result is one site, keyed by SEMS ID, and includes milestones, but it does not disclose response shape, error behavior, or any edge cases.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. The key resource, lookup key, and included milestone data are all front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 lookup tool, this description is minimally adequate: it identifies the resource and what is returned. But with no output schema and no annotation context, it leaves details about SEMS ID format, milestone structure, and how this tool relates to sibling tools underspecified.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the parameter documentation, but 'by SEMS id' largely restates the parameter name 'sems_id.' It confirms that the parameter is the lookup key, but it does not define what a SEMS ID is, provide a format, or give an example.

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 clearly states that the tool returns a single Superfund NPL site identified by SEMS ID and that milestones are included. It is specific enough to distinguish the tool from a general overview or summary, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve.'

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 SEMS id' implies this tool is for single-site lookups when a SEMS ID is available. However, it never explicitly says when not to use it or names alternatives such as site_overview or superfund_summary, so the guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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