EPA Air Quality System (AQS) MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is returned (daily summaries with arithmetic mean, maximum values, etc.) but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements (though these are covered in parameter descriptions), error handling, pagination, or data freshness. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. The first sentence states the purpose and what's included in the summary, while the second specifies the bounding box mechanism. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, rate limits, or how results are structured. For a data retrieval tool with multiple parameters and no output schema, users need more guidance about what to expect from the response.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'Specify the bounding box using minimum and maximum latitude/longitude coordinates' which is already clear from parameter names and descriptions. No additional parameter semantics are provided in the description itself.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get daily summary air quality data for all monitoring sites within a geographic bounding box' with specific details about what the summary includes. It distinguishes from some siblings by specifying 'daily' and 'by box' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other daily summary tools (e.g., aqs_daily_summary_by_cbsa, aqs_daily_summary_by_county).

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 through the phrase 'within a geographic bounding box' and mentions specific coordinate parameters, suggesting this tool is for geographic area queries. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like aqs_daily_summary_by_cbsa or aqs_daily_summary_by_county, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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