epa_air_quality

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the requirement for AQS_API_KEY and AQS_EMAIL, a signup link, and the constraint that bdate/edate must be in the same year. These go beyond the annotations and help the agent understand authentication and date-boundary behavior.

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 structured into clear sections (overview, parameters, services, states, date constraint, authentication). It is front-loaded with the main purpose and readable. It is somewhat long due to enumerating all parameter codes and services, but these are necessary for usability. It avoids fluff and is appropriately organized.

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 6 parameters (4 required) and no output schema, the description covers essential usage details: parameter codes, service options, state FIPS codes, date constraints, and authentication. It does not describe return structure or pagination, but since no output schema exists, some ambiguity remains. Overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool correctly, though return format details would improve it.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including the parameter codes, service choices, state examples, and the same-year constraint. The description largely duplicates this information, adding only the API key/email requirement, which is not parameter-specific. Thus it adds little value beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('air quality data from EPA's Air Quality System (AQS)'). It also mentions the return type ('annual summary data by state') and lists available services. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like epa_aqs_daily or epa_aqs_monitors, which reduces sibling differentiation slightly.

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 context on how to use the tool (parameters, services, date constraints) but does not explain when to prefer this tool over the sibling epa_aqs_daily or epa_aqs_monitors. It omits any when-not-to-use guidance, so an agent must infer the appropriate selection from the sibling list.

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