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 default behaviors for year and pollutants, and lists the returned metrics. This goes beyond a simple 'Get statistics' statement, though it does not discuss edge cases like invalid locations or data completeness.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, then lists return values and parameters in a clean inherited Argparse style. Every sentence adds value, and the parameter details are organized effectively without unnecessary fluff.

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 tool with no output schema and three parameters, the description covers the key inputs and outputs: it spells out parameter formats/defaults and enumerates the metrics returned. It does not specify the exact structure of the compliance assessment (e.g., boolean, string), but the information is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's scope.

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 provides only titles and types (0% description coverage), so the description must compensate. It defines location as 'Postcode, place name, or "lat,lon"', explains the year default as 'most recent complete year', and clarifies pollutants as an optional filter with an example. This is highly informative and goes well beyond 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 starts with a specific verb 'Get' and a clear resource: 'LAQM Annual Status Report-style statistics for a location.' It enumerates the exact outputs (annual means, percentiles, exceedance counts, data capture percentages, compliance assessment) and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_aqi_summary or chart_aq_trend, which focus on different aspects of air quality data.

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 context by detailing the statistical outputs and compliance assessment, making it clear this tool is for regulatory-style reporting. However, it does not explicitly mention when_not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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