epa_aqs_daily

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is known as read-only. The description adds that it requires AQS_API_KEY and AQS_EMAIL, which is critical behavioral information. No contradictory statements, and the return format is partially described. Rate limits or pagination are not mentioned, but the key auth requirement is a valuable addition.

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 four sentences and gets to the point quickly, stating purpose, return values, parameter examples, and usage context. The list of pollutant codes is a bit redundant with the schema, but overall it is well-structured and concise without unnecessary fluff.

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 absence of an output schema, the description explains that it returns daily mean, max, and observation count. It also mentions the need for API keys. For a tool with 5 parameters and 4 required, this is fairly complete, though it could clarify the structure (e.g., per monitor per day). Still, it provides enough context for an agent to understand the output.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description repeats the parameter codes and pollutant names, but does not add new semantics beyond what is already in the schema. Therefore, it meets the baseline of 3 without additional value.

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 it returns daily air quality summary data from EPA AQS, including daily mean, max, and observation count. The verb 'Get' and the resource 'daily air quality summary data' are specific, and the list of pollutant codes adds clarity. While not explicitly distinguishing from siblings, the purpose is 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 mentions it is useful for tracking day-to-day pollution levels and suggests cross-referencing with CDC health data, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like epa_air_quality or epa_aqs_monitors, nor does it provide exclusions.

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