epa_superfund

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

With readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the safety profile is already clear. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining the NPL status codes and mentioning cleanup progress, which helps interpret results. No contradictions with annotations.

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 efficient and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second lists return fields, third explains NPL statuses, fourth suggests cross-referencing. Every sentence adds value with no wasted text.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey what the tool returns. It covers site name, location, NPL status, cleanup progress, and explains status codes. It omits pagination/result structure details, but given the simplicity and the rows parameter, it is sufficiently complete for most use cases.

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%, with 'state' and 'rows' both well-described (state code format, default/max rows). The description does not add additional parameter semantics, but the schema fully covers parameter meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves Superfund (CERCLA) contaminated sites by state, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from sibling EPA tools by focusing on Superfund sites specifically, and it lists the key data returned.

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 gives clear context: use this to get Superfund sites by state, with NPL status explanation. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous and the cross-reference hint suggests complementary usage with other datasets.

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