epa_facilities

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety. The description adds useful context about the ECHO source and that results include permit violations, inspections, and enforcement actions. However, it does not disclose pagination, default filters (major_only/active_only are in schema), or response format, so transparency is adequate but not rich.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence adds value: the first states the core search purpose, the second defines what results contain, and the third explains media type options. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not detail the response structure or fields beyond mentioning facilities with violations/inspections/enforcement. It also lacks guidance on how this relates to the sibling 'epa_facility_detail'. For a moderately complex search tool with one required parameter and filters, the description is functional but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description's media type explanation duplicates the schema's media_type description and adds little new meaning. No additional semantics for state, limit, major_only, or active_only are provided beyond what the schema states.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('EPA-regulated facilities'), and the purpose (environmental compliance and violations via ECHO). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'epa_facility_detail' by focusing on search/filtering, and clarifies scope with air/water media types.

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 provides clear context that this is for searching facilities by state and media, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus sibling tools like 'epa_facility_detail' or 'epa_enforcement'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, so usage guidance is 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.