gov.epa-facilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination parameters (limit, offset), rate limits, authentication, data freshness, or behavior on empty results. The description only covers what data is filtered, not how the tool behaves operationally.

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 sentence of ~20 words, front-loaded with the key identifier 'EPA Facility Registry Service'. It is highly concise with no redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main filters (state, name, program) but misses the pagination parameters (limit, offset). It is adequate for basic understanding but lacks completeness regarding result structure and optional parameters.

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?

The schema coverage is 60%, and the description adds value by clarifying that 'name' is a prefix (not exact match) and gives examples for 'program' (RCRA, NPDES, TRI). However, it omits explanation of 'limit' and 'offset' parameters, which are in the schema but lack descriptions. Overall, it provides moderate additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 the tool provides EPA-regulated facilities from the Facility Registry Service, with filters for state, name prefix, and program acronym. It is specific about the resource and main parameters, though it does not explicitly include a verb like 'search' or 'list', making it clear but not fully explicit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its specific EPA focus.

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 looking up EPA facilities by state, name, or program. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is implied but not elaborated.

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