find_facilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It describes the action as 'searches' (implying read-only) and specifies the return format, which suggests no destructive side effects. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is safe or non-destructive, nor does it mention any authentication, rate limits, or potential errors. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise: a one-line purpose, a brief paragraph on the database and return data, a clear usage note, a structured Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is well-organized and easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (4 parameters, 2 required, no enums) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the purpose, parameters, return format, and a specific use case. It does not mention any limitations, errors, or authentication requirements, but for a query tool this is generally sufficient. It is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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 JSON input schema has only titles and types (0% description coverage), but the tool description compensates thoroughly by listing each parameter (lat, lon, radius_km, max_results) with plain-language explanations, defaults, and constraints (e.g., max 500 for radius_km). This adds significant 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 finds E-PRTR industrial facilities near a location, specifies the database (E-PRTR with ~97,000 facilities), and lists the returned data (sorted by distance, sector, emissions). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., geocode, reverse_geocode, query_climate) by focusing on facility proximity assessment, and even mentions a specific regulatory context (CSRD ESRS E2-9 §55).

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 states the tool is useful for CSRD ESRS E2-9 §55 industrial proximity assessment, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare against sibling tools, though the sibling list suggests different purposes (e.g., water_risk, query_climate). The guidance is clear but lacks direct exclusions.

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