epa_enforcement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so description's disclosure of return fields (case name, law, penalties) adds moderate value. No mention of rate limits, auth, or behavior on empty results, but adequate given annotation coverage.

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 focused sentences: purpose, case types, return fields, and cross-references. No redundancy, 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?

For a read-only search tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the query scope, result content, and suggests complementary data sources. No gaps for its 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?

Schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (state, law, limit). Description adds context about case types and return fields but does not add meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it searches EPA enforcement cases, specifies types (civil/criminal, JDC/AFR), and lists return fields. Differentiates from sibling EPA tools by focusing exclusively on enforcement actions.

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?

Provides cross-referencing suggestions (DOJ, SEC, lobbying, FEC) but no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over other EPA tools like epa_facilities or epa_air_quality. Usage context is implied but not defined.

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