epa_aqs_daily

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description goes beyond annotations by specifying the exact data returned (daily mean, max, observation count) and the requirement for authentication via AQS_API_KEY and AQS_EMAIL. This adds transparency about the necessary setup and output content.

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 concise, with three sentences covering purpose, data details, and use case. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the parameter code list is duplicated from the schema, which is redundant and slightly bloaty. Removing that duplication would make it even more concise, but it's still efficient overall.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify return format. The description states it returns 'daily mean, max, and observation count per monitor' but doesn't detail structure or additional fields like units. Also, authentication requirements are mentioned, which is good. Given the lack of output schema and the moderate complexity, a score of 3 is justified for the missing structural details.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters (bdate, edate, param, state, county) have descriptions in the schema. The description does not add new parameter details; it merely lists the parameter codes already in the schema. However, it does provide context that parameters are required for daily data retrieval, but that's not additional semantics. Given the 100% coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Get daily air quality summary data from EPA AQS.' It specifies the resource (EPA AQS), the scope (daily summary data), and what metrics are returned (daily mean, max, observation count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like epa_air_quality and epa_aqs_monitors, which are about broader air quality queries or monitor metadata.

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 a clear use case: 'Useful for tracking day-to-day pollution levels. Cross-reference with CDC health data.' It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but it does give context for when it's appropriate. The lack of explicit exclusions is a minor gap, but the intended use is clear.

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