export_air_quality_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds that the tool exports as CSV/Excel and explains selection logic and time ranges. However, it omits behavioral details like the max_points cap on data points and does not describe what the response contains (e.g., file path or download). For a read tool, the description provides adequate but not comprehensive 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?

Description is well-structured with clear sections (Selector, OUTPUT FORMAT, REQUIRED, TIME RANGE). Information is front-loaded in the first sentence. Every line serves a purpose without verbosity. Efficient and easy to parse.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and annotations only providing readOnlyHint, the description should cover return values and all constraints. It does not describe the output response type (e.g., file URL or binary), nor the max_points parameter behavior. Date format expectations are not specified. Sufficient for basic use but leaves gaps for advanced usage.

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 coverage is 0%; description compensates by explaining 8 of 10 parameters: sensor, device, location, group, output_format, last_hours, from_datetime, to_datetime, timezone_name. It adds valuable context like mutual exclusivity of selectors and default export scope. However, max_points is not mentioned, leaving a gap in parameter understanding.

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?

Description starts with 'Export historical air-Q sensor data as CSV or Excel', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_air_quality_history (retrieve) and plot_air_quality_history (visualize) by focusing on file export. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Description explains selectors (device, location, group) and when each applies, and states default behavior when none is specified. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide 'when not to use' guidance. Alternatives like get_air_quality_history or plot_air_quality_history are not mentioned.

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