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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns a markdown document, the default framework ('all'), and the optional pollutant filter. However, it does not state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe potential errors or behavior with invalid inputs. The mention of 'current' hints at data freshness but lacks detail.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, an Args section for parameters, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds value, and the front-loaded purpose ensures quick understanding. No filler or redundant information.

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 a simple KB getter with two optional parameters and an output schema (though not shown), the description is mostly complete. It covers framework options, defaults, filtering, and return type. The main gap is a lack of predefined pollutant values or a note on how to discover them, but given the output schema exists and the tool is well-scoped, this is a minor omission.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'framework' by enumerating allowed values ('WHO', 'UK', 'EU', 'all') and clarifies that 'pollutant' is an optional filter. However, it does not provide examples of pollutant names or explain format constraints, leaving some ambiguity for a parameter that is not enumerated in the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Get') and resource ('air quality guideline and target values'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling KB tools like kb_get_health_effects or kb_get_local_context. It also specifies the return format ('full guidelines document'), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 by listing framework and pollutant filters, with defaults clearly noted. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternative tools (e.g., 'use kb_get_health_effects for health impact info'). The context is clear enough for basic selection, but explicit exclusions are absent.

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