Air health bands

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that omitted readings are fetched from the default provider and that the tool returns per-pollutant bands, the worst signal, deduplicated actions, and source citations. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured sentences: the first states the core classification function, the second covers both usage modes and summarizes return values. No filler, every sentence earns its place, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 7 optional parameters, a complex return concept (multiple bands + actions + citations), and no output schema. The description covers the main return elements and the fetch-fallback behavior, but it does not mention the privacy_mode parameter or potential error cases. Still, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most situations.

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 detailed descriptions for every parameter (e.g., 'If omitted, pulled from air_current_reading'). The description itself adds no extra parameter-level details, but since the schema carries full weight, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Classify PM2.5, PM10, CO2, and VOC readings into WHO 2021 / EPA / ASHRAE / UBA health bands.' This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like air_current_reading (which fetches readings) and air_aqi_check (which likely computes AQI), making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explains two modes of use ('Pass readings directly, or omit them and the tool will fetch the current reading') and mentions the default provider, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as air_aqi_check or air_health_recommendation. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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