sg_air_quality

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool returns PM2.5 and PSI readings by region with health advisory band, but it omits details like data freshness, potential errors, or whether readings are real-time or historical. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, clearly structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every phrase contributes valuable information without any redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the main aspects: the type of readings (PM2.5, PSI), the grouping (by region), and the health advisory band. It could add specifics about regions or data recency, but overall it provides enough context for a user to understand what the tool returns.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but with no parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric.rules.

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 identifies the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Singapore air quality'), and elaborates on the content (PM2.5, PSI, region breakdown, health advisory band). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sg_weather or sg_uv_index.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of alternatives or exclusions, leaving usage fully implied by the name and purpose.

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