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 full burden. It discloses aggregation behavior ('aggregate measurements by calendar quarter') and output metrics ('observation counts, arithmetic means, and maximum values'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements (implied by email/key parameters), rate limits, or response format details.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: first states purpose and scope, second explains aggregation methodology, third provides usage context. Front-loaded with core functionality, appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

For a data retrieval tool with rich schema coverage (100%) but no annotations or output schema, the description provides good context about aggregation methodology and use case. It could be more complete by mentioning authentication implications or typical response structure, but covers the essential behavioral aspects well.

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 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage when 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 ('Retrieve quarterly summary data'), resource ('air quality monitoring sites in a county'), and scope ('all sites'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'quarterly' aggregation (vs. annual/daily) and 'by county' geography (vs. by site/state/box/cbsa).

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 ('Useful for comparing air quality across multiple monitoring sites within a county') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like aqs_quarterly_summary_by_site or aqs_quarterly_summary_by_state. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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