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 warning about potential large data volumes and recommending date range limits. It also describes the return format (time, value, units, quality flags). However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling, which would be helpful for a data retrieval tool.

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 perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement, important warning, practical recommendation, and return format description - all in three efficient sentences. Every sentence adds value and the warning is appropriately front-loaded.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good context about data volume concerns and return format. However, it could benefit from mentioning authentication (implied by email/key parameters) and providing more guidance on when to use this versus aggregated summary tools. The schema documentation is excellent, which helps compensate.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already documented in the schema. It mentions date ranges generally but doesn't provide additional context about parameter relationships or constraints beyond the schema's excellent documentation.

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 a specific monitoring site'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like aqs_sample_data_by_box or aqs_sample_data_by_county that aggregate by different geographic boundaries. It specifies this returns individual sample measurements rather than summaries.

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 strong guidance on when to use this tool with the WARNING about data size and recommendation to limit date ranges to one week or one month. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to choose this tool versus sibling tools like aqs_daily_summary_by_site or aqs_annual_summary_by_site that provide aggregated data.

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