Air search public sensors

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

No annotations are provided, and the description says little beyond the return content. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any permissions needed, rate limits, or error behavior, which is insufficient for a tool without annotation support.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds a key detail about the map hint, making it efficiently structured and 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 description explains what the tool returns (curated list + map hint) but lacks specifics on list structure, fields, pagination, or limits. Without an output schema, more detail would be beneficial for completeness.

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 single parameter 'query' is fully described in the schema as a free-text city/region hint. The tool description does not add additional semantics for this parameter, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 the tool is for discovering AirGradient public sensors, returning a curated list and a map hint. It distinguishes itself from siblings like air_current_reading or air_aqi_check, which focus on different functions.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies usage as a 'helper' without stating exclusions or comparing to other sensor-discovery methods.

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