epa_superfund

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and description confirms read-only behavior. Adds value by explaining NPL status codes and cross-reference suggestions. Missing details on pagination, rate limits, or data freshness.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence purposeful – no fluff. NPL codes and cross-references are efficiently integrated.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and annotations, description covers return fields (site name, location, NPL status, cleanup progress) and includes useful cross-reference suggestions. Slightly incomplete on output structure, but adequate.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (state with examples, rows with min/max). Description adds no further semantics beyond what schema provides, 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 'Get Superfund (CERCLA) contaminated sites by state' – specific verb, resource, and scope. Distinguishes from sibling EPA tools like epa_air_quality and epa_drinking_water.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not indicate scenarios where another EPA tool (e.g., epa_facilities) would be more appropriate or any prerequisites.

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