epa_facilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ECHO source and media type details, but those are also present in the input schema. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or handling of no results. Moreover, the description contains an internal factual error ('Clean Water Act (CAA)'), which undermines transparency.

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 two sentences and front-loads the primary purpose. It is efficient and avoids fluff. However, it redundantly repeats media type details already in the schema, and the factual error adds noise. It could be slightly more concise by not repeating schema content, but overall it is well-structured.

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 no output schema and 5 parameters, the description could benefit from mentioning required parameters (state) and available filters, but the schema already documents these. It does not explain how this search tool differs from related EPA tools or when to use it over them. The factual error further detracts from completeness. The description is adequate but not thorough for a search tool with multiple filters.

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%, so all five parameters have descriptive text in the schema. The description repeats the media_type explanation but does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides. For example, it does not clarify the interplay between filters like major_only and active_only, or the effect of limit. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('EPA-regulated facilities') with a clear domain (environmental compliance and violations). It mentions air and water permit violations, inspections, and enforcement actions, which distinguishes it from detail tools like epa_facility_detail. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, and it contains a minor factual error ('Clean Water Act (CAA)' instead of 'Clean Air Act (CAA)'), which slightly reduces clarity.

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 provides context on what the tool does (search for facilities, violations, inspections) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like epa_facility_detail, epa_enforcement, or epa_toxic_releases. There is no mention of when not to use this tool or which scenarios call for a different tool. It implies a search use case but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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