epa_air_quality

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only (readOnlyHint: true). The description adds useful behavioral context: required authentication (AQS_API_KEY and AQS_EMAIL), date formatting rules, and a signup link. No destructive actions disclosed—consistent with annotation.

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 fairly concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It lists parameters and services in a clear, structured manner. However, it could be slightly shorter by moving the long list of pollutant codes to the schema description, but it remains readable.

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 no output schema, the description covers expected return type (annual summary data) and available services (annual, daily, quarterly, sample). It also includes authentication details, date constraints, and examples for state and county codes. Missing precise output structure but sufficient for a query tool.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds extra clarification beyond schema: explains parameter codes (pollutants, states) with examples, notes that 'param' accepts up to 5 comma-separated values, and emphasizes that bdate/edate must be in the same year. This compensates for schema descriptions that lack these constraints.

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 air quality data from EPA's AQS and specifies the data type (annual summary, county-level, criteria pollutants). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like epa_aqs_daily, which may cause confusion.

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 constraints (same year for dates, comma-separated params, required API key) but does not offer guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like epa_aqs_daily or epa_aqs_monitors. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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