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. It mentions authentication requirements ('Requires state FIPS code and county FIPS code'), which is useful, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format. It doesn't contradict annotations, but could provide more behavioral context for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 two sentences: one explaining the purpose and content, and another stating requirements. It's front-loaded with key information, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating authentication from data requirements).

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 (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and basic requirements but lacks details on output format, error cases, or usage nuances. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful for effective use.

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 by mentioning state and county FIPS codes, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. 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 verb ('Get'), resource ('daily summary air quality data'), and scope ('for all monitoring sites in a county'), with specific details about what the summaries include. It distinguishes from siblings like aqs_daily_summary_by_site or aqs_daily_summary_by_state by specifying the county-level aggregation.

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 mentioning 'Requires state FIPS code and county FIPS code,' which hints at prerequisites but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like aqs_daily_summary_by_site or aqs_annual_summary_by_county. No explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings are provided.

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