epa_facility_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Get' and 'Returns'. It adds useful context about the returned content categories, though it doesn't mention rate limits or other constraints. Credit for describing return value in absence of output schema.

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 verb 'Get', and every sentence provides value: what it does, what it returns, how to use it. No redundant information.

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 single-parameter detail tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the response content and usage sequence. It lists specific sections of the report and the prerequisite step, making the tool self-contained for an agent.

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 has only one parameter with a detailed description and example, so coverage is 100%. The tool description adds the workflow context that this ID comes from epa_facilities results, reinforcing the parameter's origin and use.

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 gets a detailed facility report from ECHO by registry ID, listing specific data categories (permits, enforcement actions, compliance summaries, NAICS/SIC codes, inspection history). This distinguishes it from siblings like epa_facilities which is the search/list counterpart.

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?

Explicitly states to use epa_facilities first to find a RegistryID, then pass it here for the full report. This provides a clear workflow and context for when this tool is appropriate.

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