epa_aqs_monitors

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context by stating the tool returns specific data (monitor locations, dates, etc.) and requires API credentials. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the 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 relatively concise with two sentences and a list. However, the list of parameter codes is redundant with the schema, and could be omitted to reduce clutter.

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 description covers the basic output and credentials needed, but lacks details on return format, pagination, error handling, or rate limits. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 each parameter described. The description lists param codes with explanations, but this largely duplicates the schema's parameter descriptions. No additional semantic value is added for parameters like state, bdate, edate, or county.

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 finds air quality monitoring stations and lists the types of information returned (locations, dates, measurement types, agencies). It is specific about the resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling EPA tools like epa_air_quality or epa_aqs_daily.

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 the tool is useful for finding what is measured and where, and notes the requirement for AQS_API_KEY and AQS_EMAIL. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over other EPA tools or mention any prerequisites or limitations.

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