EPA Public Water Systems

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety, idempotency, and data freshness. The description adds the source (EPA Safe Drinking Water Act data) and the return fields, but does not disclose additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's action and scope, followed by a concise list of return fields and source. Every sentence is necessary and efficient.

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 annotations (which indicate safe, read-only, idempotent behavior), the existence of an output schema (not shown but confirmed), and 100% schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context. It specifies the search criteria, returned fields, and data source, leaving no obvious gaps.

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 'state' and 'limit'. The description mentions 'by US state' but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. The baseline is 3 due to high coverage, and the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Search public water systems by US state' and lists the specific fields returned (system name, PWSID, activity status, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'epa.environment.toxic_releases' and other environment tools.

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 when needing public water system data filtered by state. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. No guidance on exclusions or related tools.

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