epa_facility_detail

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, indicating safe read operation. The description adds detail about the report contents (permits, compliance, etc.) without contradicting annotations. No mention of rate limits or response size, but adequate.

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 with no redundancy: first states purpose, second lists contents, third gives workflow. All sentences are necessary and front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately lists return fields and provides usage context. The lack of output schema is partially compensated by listing contents. Could mention report structure, but sufficient.

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 with a clear description of registry_id linking to epa_facilities. The description repeats this dependency but adds little extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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 the tool retrieves a detailed facility report from ECHO using a registry ID, listing the types of data returned (permits, enforcement, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling epa_facilities by specifying that this is the detailed follow-up.

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 explicitly instructs to first use epa_facilities to obtain a RegistryID, then use this tool for the full report. This provides clear workflow guidance, though no when-not or alternatives are mentioned.

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