epa_facility_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the data returned but does not discuss other behavioral traits like error conditions, data freshness, or potential response variability. With annotations present, the bar is lower, and the added value is moderate but not rich.

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 concise sentences: first states the purpose, second lists the data contents, third gives usage guidance. No redundant words, front-loaded with the core function, and 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?

For a single-parameter detail tool with annotations covering safety and a clear workflow, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, what data it returns, and how to obtain the required input. No output schema exists, but the listed contents provide sufficient context for expected results.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description already states it is an ECHO Registry ID from epa_facilities results. The tool description reinforces the source and workflow but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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?

The description clearly states the tool gets a detailed facility report from ECHO by registry ID, and lists the specific data contents (permits, enforcement actions, compliance summaries, NAICS/SIC codes, inspection history). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like epa_facilities (which likely returns search results) and other EPA detail tools.

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 use epa_facilities first to obtain a RegistryID, then pass it here for the full report. This gives a clear workflow and effectively tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives, satisfying the when-to-use requirement.

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