EPA Air Quality System (AQS) MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is returned but lacks critical behavioral details: authentication requirements (implied by email/key parameters but not stated), rate limits, error handling, or data format. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, the second details the statistical content. It's front-loaded with key information and avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the statistical list more smoothly.

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 7 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description adequately covers what data is retrieved but lacks completeness. It doesn't address authentication, error cases, or return format, which are crucial for a data-fetching tool. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in behavioral context.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'county' scope, which is already clear from the tool name and schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't 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 the verb 'Get' and resource 'annual summary data for all monitoring sites in a county', specifying the geographic scope. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning 'by county' and listing detailed statistical content (arithmetic mean, standard deviation, etc.), making the purpose specific and differentiated from other annual_summary_by_* 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aqs_annual_summary_by_site or aqs_daily_summary_by_county. It mentions the data includes 'all monitoring sites in a county' but does not clarify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to sibling tools, leaving the agent without contextual decision-making help.

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