Air health recommendation

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the expected read-only behavior is covered. The description additionally discloses the composed output (bands per pollutant, overall worst band, deduplicated actions), adding meaningful behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is tight and front-loaded: opens with 'Quick PM2.5-centric health recommendation,' then summarizes inputs and outputs in one sentence, then provides usage direction and alternative. Every sentence carries unique value with no repetition.

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 tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the main inputs, output shape, and the intended use case. It could mention that response_format/privacy_mode are optional, but those are already described in the schema, and the core usage instructions are complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description restates the role of PM2.5, CO2, and VOC and their units but does not add any semantics beyond the schema. It omits mention of privacy_mode and response_format, but those are fully self-explanatory in the 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 names a specific action ('returns WHO/EPA-aligned bands...', 'plain-language actions') and concrete resource scope (PM2.5-centric with optional CO2/VOC). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling air_health_bands by stating 'For richer four-pollutant classification... use air_health_bands.'

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this when you have a reading already and just want a what-should-I-do answer' and points to the alternative tool for more detailed classification. This covers the key when-to-use/when-not-to-use condition and the named alternative.

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