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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose that values come from the nearest air quality station and that the station is named in the result. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error conditions, or other operational traits such as data freshness or fallback behavior when no station is nearby.

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 purpose, then follows with location options, data source, and language. It is compact and every sentence contributes useful 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 five-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly and understand the source and basic return content. It could say more about response structure or AQHI forecast periods, but the essentials are present.

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%, but the description effectively documents all five parameters: lat/lon as a coordinate pair, query as place name, site_code from search_locations, and lang as en or fr. It does not clarify precedence when multiple location methods are supplied, but parameter meaning is otherwise well covered.

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 resource and scope: Air Quality Health Index, current value plus forecast. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from weather-oriented siblings like get_current_conditions or get_daily_forecast.

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?

It gives clear location-identification options: site_code from search_locations, query for place name, or lat/lon pair. It does not explicitly say when to choose this over other forecast/conditions tools, but the usage context for locating a place is clear.

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