search_environmental_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the free/no-key access, what is returned (record title, agency, dates, provenance URL, record_id), and that full records require a separate paid call. This goes beyond a minimal listing and helps the agent set expectations, though it could mention pagination or error behavior.

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 front-loaded with the most important fact ('FREE, no payment and no key'), then clearly lists data sources, return fields, and billing guidance. Every sentence adds useful information without fluff. The Args section is minimal and necessary.

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's scope, the description is remarkably complete. It names all major data sources, lists the exact return fields, notes the free/buy model, and provides example workflows. With no output schema, this description alone gives the agent a strong understanding of what to expect.

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?

The schema only defines 'query' as a string with no description. The description adds the semantic 'keyword(s) to search', which clarifies the parameter's purpose. For a single, simple parameter this is adequate compensation for low schema 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 uses a specific verb ('searches') and names the exact resources: USGS earthquakes and water data, NOAA weather, alerts and tides, FEMA disaster declarations, EPA compliance, and GBIF records. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling search tools by enumerating the data sources.

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 provides clear context: it answers a specific type of question and lists target workflows ('site and facility diligence, climate and hazard exposure checks, and disaster response workflows'). It also names an alternative, 'call get_record with a record_id to buy the full record', which is useful. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the use cases are clear.

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