Pollen – Latest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses several behavioral traits: it returns a single record rather than a series, it returns no data when none is available for the current hour, and per-species breakdown is conditional on regional support. These edge-case disclosures meaningfully shape agent expectations beyond a plain 'returns pollen data' statement.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by record-shape and edge-case behavior. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy with 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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers return contents, record count, and the empty-result case. Minor gaps remain, such as units, timezone handling, or how recent the 'current' hour's data is, but the core calling decision is well supported.

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 the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; the mention of per-species breakdown loosely echoes the speciesRisk parameter, but the schema already documents that behavior. No new parameter semantics are contributed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns'), a clear resource ('latest pollen data'), and concrete contents ('tree, grass, and weed pollen counts and risk levels'). The temporal qualifiers 'latest' and 'single record for the current hour' distinguish it from the pollen_forecast sibling without needing to name it.

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 usage context is implied by 'latest' and 'current hour' — an agent can infer this is the snapshot/current-conditions tool versus pollen_forecast. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over the forecast sibling, and no exclusions or alternative routing stated.

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