epa_rcra

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description aligns with that. It adds detail about return types but doesn't disclose pagination, rate limits, or data freshness. However, with no contradictions, it is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences that are efficient and informative. First sentence states action and scope, second adds return types and cross-references. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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 only two parameters, full schema description coverage, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description adequately covers purpose, returns, and relationships. Could mention uppercase requirement for state codes, but overall complete for a search tool.

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 descriptions for both parameters ('state' and 'limit'). The description does not add additional semantics beyond what is in the schema, so baseline 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 'Search RCRA hazardous waste facilities by state via ECHO' and specifies it returns generators, transporters, and TSD facilities. This distinguishes it from sibling EPA tools like epa_toxic_releases and epa_greenhouse_gas, which are mentioned for cross-referencing.

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 indicates usage context (by state) and provides cross-reference guidance for multi-program analysis. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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