epa_superfund

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the NPL status codes (F, P, D, N) and the returned cleanup progress, which are essential for interpreting results. It does not contradict annotations and adds useful detail beyond what annotations provide.

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 approximately three sentences and front-loads the main purpose immediately. The NPL status enumeration is necessary for correct interpretation and is presented compactly. There is no redundant fluff, and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior and use.

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 two parameters (one required, one optional) and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and includes the crucial NPL status interpretation. It also suggests cross-referencing with other datasets, which is helpful for broader analysis. It does not mention pagination beyond the rows parameter (which schema covers) or error handling, but for a simple state-query tool these are minor omissions.

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% for both parameters: 'state' includes a clear description of two-letter codes, and 'rows' includes max results and default. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so it does not elevate the semantics beyond the baseline for high 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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Superfund (CERCLA) contaminated sites' with a scope of 'by state.' It explicitly lists the returned fields (site name, location, NPL status, cleanup progress) and provides the NPL status codes. This distinguishes it from sibling EPA tools like epa_facilities or epa_toxic_releases, which cover other data types.

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 context by mentioning cross-referencing with Census, CDC, HUD, and USAspending data, which suggests analytical use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for different data needs. It provides clear context but lacks exclusions or alternative routing.

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