get_air_quality_stations

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

With no annotations, the description is the primary source of behavioral info. It explains parameters and implies a read-only 'get' operation, but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or return characteristics beyond what is in the output schema.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose followed by a clean list of parameter explanations. Every sentence adds necessary information, with no redundant or filler content.

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 that an output schema is present and the tool is a straightforward GET with 5 params, the description covers all parameter semantics and the core purpose. It lacks explicit notes on authentication or edge cases, but these are not critical for this simple read operation.

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 description compensates for the 0% schema coverage by providing meaningful meanings for all parameters: latlng format with example, range in meters, districts as codes, limit default, and offset pagination. This adds substantial value over the bare schema.

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 the tool retrieves 'air quality monitoring stations in Prague', using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bicycle_counters or get_waste_stations.

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 provides clear context that this is for air quality stations in Prague, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the domain-specific purpose implicitly differentiates it from other 'get' tools.

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