state_environment

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict, but the description adds little behavioral context. It does not disclose pagination, result formats, rate limits, or that the 'where' parameter implies SoQL filtering. The only added context is the suggestion to cross-reference EPA tools, which is more of a usage note than a behavioral disclosure. With annotations covering safety, the description still fails to enrich the agent's understanding of runtime behavior.

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 (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It uses a clear verb ('Query') and provides a helpful list of example data types. Every sentence earns its place, and there is 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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and a broad scope, the description is adequate but minimal. It lists content categories and hints at a state-vs-federal context, yet it does not explain how to use filters (q, where, county) beyond what the schema already says, nor does it describe the relationship to sibling environmental tools like epa_facilities. For a query tool with no output schema, more context about expected return shape or dataset source would improve completeness.

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%: all parameters (state, q, limit, where, county) have descriptions. The baseline is therefore 3. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond listing data categories, but it does not need to because the schema is thorough. No extra value like examples or parameter interactions is provided.

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 queries environmental data for a US state and lists example content types (air quality violations, water assessments, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling state_* tools (health, education, economy) and mentions cross-referencing with federal EPA tools for national context, which highlights its state-level scope. However, the phrase 'May include' is somewhat open-ended, leaving the exact dataset scope slightly unspecified.

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 implies usage for state-level environmental queries and notes that federal EPA tools should be used for national context, which is a partial distinction. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over specific alternatives like epa_facilities or state_query, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Usage guidance is implied but not explicit.

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