epa_rcra

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the facility types returned (generators, transporters, TSD) and that it queries via ECHO, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Search RCRA hazardous waste facilities by state'), then adds return details, and finally a cross-referencing tip. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple search tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description explains what is returned (facility types) and hints at the ECHO source. It lacks explicit details about result structure or pagination, but given the low complexity and strong annotations, it is nearly complete. A 4 is appropriate.

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%, with both 'state' and 'limit' fully described in the input schema. The description does not add any additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without adding extra value.

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 verb ('Search'), resource ('RCRA hazardous waste facilities'), and scope ('by state'), and specifies the facility types returned (generators, transporters, TSD). It distinguishes itself from related EPA tools like epa_facilities and epa_toxic_releases by focusing on RCRA Subtitle C facilities, so an agent can easily tell it apart.

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 implies usage by stating the search scope and explicitly mentions cross-referencing with epa_toxic_releases and epa_greenhouse_gas for multi-program analysis, which suggests when to use this tool versus others. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative conditions, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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