get_air_quality

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'live' and that it requires latitude/longitude (already in schema), but does not disclose limitations, units, error behavior, or any safety/read-only nature beyond the verb 'Fetch' implying a read operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and data details. Every word is purposeful; no fluff.

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?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, but the description lacks any caution or usage exclusions. It states a use case but not coverage area, data source, or any complementary relationships with sibling tools, making it only minimally complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only repeats 'Requires latitude and longitude' without adding meaning like units, coordinate order, or bounds. This adds no value beyond the schema's required fields.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and specific resource 'live air quality data (PM2.5, PM10, AQI)' with an intended use case. This distinguishes it from siblings which focus on weather, cooling spots, or heat risk/advice.

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?

Provides clear context: used to assess respiratory safety during heat waves. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, falling just short of a 5.

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