Air quality now and forecast (Poland)

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the authoritative provenance (official GIOŚ stations, Copernicus CAMS), the hard geographic restriction to Poland, the voivodeship-level scope of smog warnings, and the 25 km station radius. It does not disclose behavior for places outside Poland or for zero-station cases.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the data inventory, which is the most valuable information for selection. The long enumeration of pollutants is dense but each item earns its place; only the trailing restatement of the place parameter duplicates the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly by listing the returned measurements, means, limits, warnings, and forecast horizons. Missing only edge-case behavior (place not found, outside Poland) for a read-only open-world tool.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including defaults for forecast and stations. The description's trailing 'place: town, address or lat,lon' simply restates the schema, and it adds no new syntax or constraint detail — baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource (current air quality plus forecast for a place in Poland) and enumerates the exact data returned — index, hourly PM2.5/PM10/NO2/O3/SO2, warnings, 3-day PM and pollen forecast. It is unmistakably distinct from air_stations and data_sources in substance, though it never names those siblings explicitly to route the agent.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the geographic scoping ('in Poland') and the forecast toggle convey when the tool fits, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of air_stations or data_sources as alternatives for station listings or provenance.

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