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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool retrieves data and aggregates it by quarter, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as authentication requirements (though hinted in the schema), rate limits, error handling, or data format. For a data retrieval tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose. The second sentence elaborates on aggregation details, and the third provides usage context. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the usage context into the first sentence.

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 minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and usage context but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, error handling, and output format. With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at return values, but it does not, leaving gaps for a tool with multiple required parameters.

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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationships between parameters or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.

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 site'), and scope ('aggregate measurements by calendar quarter'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying quarterly vs. annual/daily summaries and by-site vs. by-county/state/box/cbsa aggregation, which is evident from the sibling tool names.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Useful for analyzing seasonal patterns and trends at individual monitoring locations'), which implicitly differentiates it from daily or annual summaries. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, such as which sibling tools to use for non-quarterly or non-site-specific queries.

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