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. It describes what data is returned (annual summaries with statistics) but lacks behavioral details such as authentication requirements (implied by email/key parameters but not stated), rate limits, error handling, or data format. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but provides minimal operational context beyond the data content.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and data details without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, followed by specific data elements. However, it could be slightly more concise by integrating usage context.

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 the complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what data is retrieved but lacks details on authentication, error handling, or output structure. With 100% schema coverage, the parameter documentation is handled, but behavioral aspects are underspecified for a tool with multiple required inputs.

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 8 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but it does imply the context of 'annual' data and site-specific focus, which aligns with parameters like bdate/edate and state/county/site. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Get annual summary data') and resource ('EPA air quality monitoring site'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'by site' in the name and focusing on site-level data. It provides detailed content of the summary (statistics, metrics, exceedance counts) that differentiates it from other summary 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 implies usage by specifying 'for a specific EPA air quality monitoring site' and listing the type of data returned, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like aqs_annual_summary_by_county or aqs_daily_summary_by_site. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, though the input schema hints at requirements.

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