reunion_get_air_quality

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are sorted by last-update descending and lists the returned fields. This is fairly transparent for a read-only data retrieval tool, though it does not discuss rate limits or authentication needs.

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: the first explains the tool's function and data source, the second lists output fields and sorting. Every sentence adds value, and the description is front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description lists all returned fields and mentions sorting. It covers the key aspects for using the tool, though it could mention whether the data is always recent or any pagination behavior. Overall, it is fairly complete for a simple data retrieval 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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, including enum values for pollutant. The description adds minimal extra context (e.g., mentioning city as prefix match), but overall the schema already provides adequate semantics, so the description offers limited additional value.

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 that the tool returns air-quality station measurements from OpenAQ for La Réunion. It specifies each row represents one measurement at one station for one pollutant and lists the returned fields. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools, which cover other topics like commune profiles or search tools.

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 implies use for environmental monitoring, public-health analysis, or pollution-event tracking but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No mention of prerequisites or alternative tools for related queries.

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