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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a non-obvious behavior: the API performs geocoding internally, so the agent should not pre-geocode or call other tools first. This goes beyond the basic 'Get' purpose and adds meaningful process transparency, though it does not elaborate on response shape or error cases (partly mitigated by the output schema).

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. The bullet-like location alternatives are easy to parse, examples clarify the free-text format, and every sentence carries necessary constraints. No filler or redundancy.

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 the core task of retrieving a 48-hour pollen forecast, the description is complete: it specifies the temporal range, the location options, and the constraint against pre-geocoding. The output schema covers return values. The main gap is that the optional locale and species_risk parameters are not explained in the description, and species_risk has no schema description either, leaving an agent to guess its meaning.

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 description adds valuable semantics beyond the schema by defining the relationship between lat/lng and place, including when to choose each and the mutual-exclusion rule. Schema coverage is 80% but not above that threshold, and the remaining species_risk parameter is left entirely undocumented in both the schema and description, so the description does not fully compensate.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('hourly pollen count and risk forecast'), and a precise temporal scope ('next 48 hours'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling pollen_latest, which presumably returns current conditions, and from air_quality/weather 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 gives explicit guidance on how to provide the location: either lat/lng or place, with the instruction to pick one form and not pass both. It also tells the agent not to geocode itself or call another tool first, which is useful workflow context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with pollen_latest or other alternatives, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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