Pollen

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It reveals a non-obvious behavior: location does not affect the pollen levels, only which payload is read. This is valuable transparency beyond the schema. It does not mention response format or error cases, but the output schema exists and the tool is a simple read operation.

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 filler. It front-loads the main purpose, then adds the key behavioral nuance about national levels and location selection. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple retrieval tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It clarifies the tool's scope, the national behavior, the default location, and the role of the location parameters. There is no missing information an agent needs to invoke it 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 schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context by stating that location parameters only select the payload and default to Brussels, helping the agent understand that commune/latitude/longitude are not regional filters. This raises it above the baseline.

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 action and resource: 'Return today's official IRM pollen levels for Belgium.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from weather siblings like current_conditions or daily_forecast, which are not about pollen. It also adds the important scope qualifier (national levels) that makes the behavior unambiguous.

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 provides clear usage context by explaining that pollen levels are national and location only selects the forecast payload, defaulting to Brussels. This guides the agent in setting the location parameters correctly. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or list when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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