epa_drinking_water

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and description aligns by stating 'Get... data'. Additionally, description details return fields (population served, source type, system type) and explains system type codes, adding behavioral context beyond 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?

Three sentences efficiently convey purpose, return data, and system type explanations. No superfluous content; front-loaded with main action.

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?

Description covers return fields and explains system types, compensating for lack of output schema. Suggests cross-referencing with other datasets. Missing details on pagination or rows parameter default, but adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters (state and rows). Description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond schema, but the schema itself is clear. 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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) data', and scope 'by state'. It distinguishes this EPA tool from siblings like epa_air_quality and usgs_water_data by specifying the drinking water focus.

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?

Description explains what data is returned and provides system type definitions, aiding appropriate use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or comparison to alternative water data tools like usgs_water_data.

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