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 and does well by disclosing critical behavioral traits: the WARNING about potentially large data returns, the recommendation to limit date ranges, and clarification that it returns 'individual sample measurements' (not summaries). It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements, but those are covered in the schema.

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, second provides critical warning and recommendation, third clarifies return format. The warning is appropriately front-loaded, and every sentence adds essential information for tool selection and usage.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness: it explains what the tool returns, warns about data volume, and gives usage recommendations. It could improve by mentioning authentication (though covered in schema) or providing more detail about the return structure, but it's largely adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema—it mentions 'bounding box' and 'coordinates' which relate to the lat/lon parameters, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns that aren't already in the schema descriptions.

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 raw sample data') and resource ('for all monitoring sites within a geographic bounding box'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like aqs_sample_data_by_cbsa or aqs_sample_data_by_site that use different geographic scopes. It specifies 'individual sample measurements' to differentiate from summary tools.

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 with a WARNING about data size and recommends limiting date ranges, offering practical guidance for when to use it cautiously. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives like aqs_sample_data_by_cbsa or aqs_sample_data_by_site, missing explicit sibling differentiation.

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