Air search public sensors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe/read-only nature is covered. The description adds the behavior of returning a 'curated list' and a 'hint' (not raw search results), which clarifies the tool's lightweight scope. However, it doesn't disclose details like filtering logic, rate limits, or what 'well-maintained' means.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It earns its place by stating what the tool returns and provides a pointer to additional resources. No redundant information.

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 the tool's simplicity (no required params, no output schema, annotations cover safety), the description is adequate but not rich. It mentions the hint to the map, which adds context, but doesn't explain the structure of the 'curated list' or how the query parameter influences results beyond 'hint for the human.' For a discovery helper, this is reasonably complete, yet could specify that it's a lightweight lookup rather than an exhaustive search.

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 100%, so both parameters are fully described in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond that—'query' and 'privacy_mode' are already well-documented. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't add further semantics.

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's purpose: 'Helper for discovering AirGradient public sensors.' It specifies the resource (public sensors) and the action (discovering). The mention of returning a 'curated list' plus a hint distinguishes it from sibling tools like air_list_devices or air_current_reading, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast with.

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 implies usage for discovering public sensors but doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives. The 'hint to the AirGradient map' suggests a complementary action but doesn't state when to prefer this over other tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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