aqi_by_pincode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavioral trait: the lookup resolves via the PIN's district and returns district-level, not street-level, data. However, it omits other relevant traits such as invalid-PIN behavior, data freshness details, and what the response contains.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no wasted language. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the district-level caveat follows immediately as useful qualification.

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 single-parameter lookup with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, input format, example, and result granularity. It does not describe the return payload or error behavior, but the essential information needed to invoke the tool correctly is present.

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 define the sole parameter. It does so well: '6-digit Indian PIN code', with a concrete example ('110001' for central Delhi) and an explanation of how the PIN is used (district-level lookup). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 'pincode' schema property.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get current air quality') and precisely scopes it to a 6-digit Indian PIN code, including an example. It also distinguishes the result granularity ('district-level, not street-level'), which helps an agent understand exactly what this tool returns compared with a generic air-quality tool.

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?

It clearly establishes the context for use: when you have a 6-digit Indian PIN code and want current air quality for that area. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_air_quality or lookup_pincode, so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not guidance, but the applicable scenario is unambiguous.

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