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 the data returned (daily summaries with specific metrics) and mentions CBSA definition source, but does not cover authentication requirements (implied by email/key parameters but not stated), rate limits, error handling, or response format. It adds some context but leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 sized with three sentences: first states purpose and scope, second defines CBSA, third details included data. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the CBSA definition into the first sentence, but overall it's efficient and well-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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers purpose and data content well, but lacks information on authentication, error handling, and response structure. Without annotations or output schema, the agent may struggle with invocation details beyond basic parameter usage.

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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain param codes further or date constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description adds no extra parameter semantics.

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 'daily summary air quality data', specifies the scope 'for all monitoring sites in a Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA)', and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on CBSA geography and daily (not annual/quarterly) summaries. It explains what CBSAs are and what data is included (arithmetic mean, maximum values, etc.).

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 specifying 'daily summary' and CBSA focus, which helps differentiate from annual/quarterly or other geographic tools in the sibling list. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like aqs_daily_summary_by_county or aqs_daily_summary_by_state, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions beyond what's in the schema.

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