epa_aqs_daily

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already known. The description adds value beyond annotations by outlining the output fields ('daily mean, max, and observation count per monitor') and explicitly stating the required authentication credentials. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 mostly concise and front-loaded, but the parameter list duplicates the schema's parameter descriptions almost verbatim. While not overly verbose, this redundancy means some content does not earn its place, though the overall structure is still clear and readable.

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 read-only data retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it explains the purpose, the output summary fields, the required parameters, and authentication needs. It lacks explicit mention of pagination or error behavior, but these are not critical for a straightforward daily data query 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described. The description repeats the parameter code mappings found in the schema, adding little new semantic detail. It provides no extra explanation of format, defaults, or optionality beyond what the schema contains, so it stays at the baseline for high coverage.

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's function: 'Get daily air quality summary data from EPA AQS' and specifies the returned metrics ('daily mean, max, and observation count per monitor'). This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like epa_aqs_monitors, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Provides clear context for use: 'Useful for tracking day-to-day pollution levels' and suggests 'Cross-reference with CDC health data.' It also notes the credential requirement (AQS_API_KEY and AQS_EMAIL). However, it offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives compared to sibling EPA tools.

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