Get Current Aqhi

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the data granularity (individual stations), the measurement scale (1 to 10 and 10+), and the health risk categories with advice. It does not mention data freshness or update frequency, but for a simple read-only current-data tool this is adequate.

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 compact two-sentence definition that front-loads the key fact: this is current AQHI data. It could be slightly more direct by using an imperative verb, but there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a no-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is measured, where, the scale, and the categorization. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No parameter guidance is needed, and the description appropriately focuses on the output semantics instead.

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 identifies the resource: current AQHI readings at individual general and roadside monitoring stations in Hong Kong. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns,' but the meaning is unambiguous. With no sibling tools, differentiation is not needed.

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 this is the tool for obtaining current AQHI values in Hong Kong, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. There are no sibling tools to contrast with, so this is a minor gap.

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