Air health recommendation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly describes the output structure (bands, worst band, actions) and implies no side effects. However, it could be more explicit about error handling or rate limits, but the basic behavioral transparency is good.

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, no wasted words. First sentence defines the function and output, second sentence provides usage context and sibling differentiation. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and output. It doesn't explain error cases or performance, but for a simple recommendation tool, it's sufficiently 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 adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying 'Pass current PM2.5' and 'optionally CO2 and VOC index', and explains the response_format parameter's default. This adds value.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns WHO/EPA-aligned bands per pollutant, worst band, and plain-language actions. It uses specific verbs like 'returns' and 'use this', making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'air_health_bands' by noting this is quick and PM2.5-centric.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when you have a reading already and just want a what should I do? answer.' It also explicitly contrasts with 'air_health_bands' for richer classification, telling the agent when not to use this tool.

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