air_quality_now

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 mentions retrieving 'most recent' rows, implying a time-based query, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, data freshness, authentication needs, or error handling. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first followed by parameter details. The two sentences earn their place by defining the tool and clarifying the zone parameter. It could be slightly more structured but avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and one parameter but misses details on the 'limit' parameter and behavioral aspects. For a simple data query tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'zone' parameter with examples ('NOROESTE', 'CENTRO', 'SURESTE') and notes it's optional, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't mention the 'limit' parameter at all, leaving it undocumented. With 2 parameters and partial coverage, this meets the baseline for moderate 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves 'most recent air-quality index rows from SIMAT (via datos.cdmx)', which specifies the verb (retrieve), resource (air-quality index rows), and data source. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'describe_dataset' or 'query_records' that might also access air quality data, though the 'most recent' aspect provides some distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions a zone filter but doesn't explain when to apply it or compare to other tools like 'aggregate' or 'query_records' that might handle similar data. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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