epa_toxic_releases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which tells the agent this is a safe read operation. The description adds helpful context about the regulatory basis (EPCRA Section 313) and common sectors, helping the agent understand the data domain. Lacking an output schema, it could have added more about return structure, but the read-only nature and added domain context are sufficient.

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 well-structured: a clear one-line purpose, a brief regulatory context sentence, a useful list of common sectors, and a practical cross-reference note. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 simple read-only tool with only 3 parameters, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, data source, sector examples, and related tools. Without an output schema, more detail on return fields would help, but the description gives enough for an agent to understand the domain 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (rows, state, county) already explained in the input schema. The description mentions 'by state' which reinforces the state parameter, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 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 'Get Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data by state', specifying both the resource and the scoping dimension. Mentions of specific sectors and cross-references with epa_facilities and epa_greenhouse_gas distinguish this tool from sibling environmental tools.

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 on what data is covered (chemical releases under EPCRA) and explicitly names alternative tools for complementary data (compliance status via epa_facilities, emissions via epa_greenhouse_gas), providing when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions like 'not for facility-level compliance' or mention when not to use it.

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