Air demo

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by disclosing that the sample is contract-tested against real handlers via a build script, meaning field names are not invented. This reassures the agent about the fidelity of the output without contradicting the annotations.

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 with no unnecessary words. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds credible context about the contract test without bloating the description.

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 demo tool that exists to show example output, the description sufficiently explains what the return value represents and why it is trustworthy. The lack of an output schema is acceptable because the tool's entire purpose is to reveal the shape of other tools' outputs. The privacy_mode parameter is documented in the schema, so nothing critical is missing here.

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 already fully documents the only parameter (privacy_mode) with its enum and description, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning about how privacy_mode affects the sample payload, which could have been useful but is not necessary for correct invocation.

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 a realistic example payload of air_current_reading, air_aqi_check, and air_daily_summary. This specific verb and resource scope, plus naming the three sibling tools it demonstrates, makes its purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from the actual data-fetching 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?

Explicitly says to use this tool to help users understand what the connector will return BEFORE configuring anything. This conveys a clear timing/context for use and implies it is not for obtaining real current readings, effectively separating it from siblings.

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