Air list devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds value by clarifying it's for the configured provider account and charging environment variable requirements for AirThings, but it doesn't disclose return format or pagination. With strong annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 three concise sentences with zero fluff. The main action is front-loaded, followed by a version note and routing to the sibling. Each sentence earns its place with distinct value.

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 that this is a read-only list tool with solid annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key points: what it does, scope, version support, and when to use an alternative. Missing a description of return format or pagination, but those might be acceptable for a list tool. The characterization of the sibling is 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 description coverage is exactly 50%, with only privacy_mode having an explicit description. The provider property has an enum but no schema description, and the tool description does not clarify what each provider value does beyond mentioning AirThings. It doesn't explain 'provider account' semantics for the provider parameter, leaving the agent to infer from enum values alone. This deserves a 2 because the description should compensate for the 50% coverage but doesn't.

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 it 'Lists devices owned by the configured provider account,' giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from air_search_public_sensors by naming that sibling explicitly for AirGradient sensors, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit routing: 'For AirGradient owned sensors use air_search_public_sensors instead,' which is a clear when-not condition. It also notes that v0.3 supports AirThings and requires airthings client ID/secret, providing a setup precondition. That's strong usage guidance.

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