epa_aqs_monitors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is to add context. It discloses return contents (monitor locations, operational dates, measurement types, agencies) and the authentication requirement (AQS_API_KEY and AQS_EMAIL), which goes beyond the schema. It omits details like pagination or rate limits, but for a simple lookup this is adequate. No contradiction with annotations.

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 efficient: a direct opening sentence, a return-fields sentence, a parameter listing, a usage note, and an auth requirement. The parameter list is somewhat redundant with the schema but not verbose. Front-loaded and well-organized, earning a strong score without being overly terse.

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 compensates by explicitly stating what the tool returns (monitor locations, operational dates, measurement types, agencies). It also mentions the required authentication. It does not cover pagination or limits, but for a station lookup tool these are minor. Overall, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description redundantly lists the parameter codes and their meanings, matching exactly what the schema provides. It adds no new semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Find'), resource ('air quality monitoring stations'), and source ('EPA AQS'), then lists concrete return fields (locations, operational dates, measurement types, operating agencies). This unambiguously identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from other EPA tools like epa_aqs_daily or epa_air_quality.

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?

Provides a clear use case ('Useful for finding what is being measured and where') that conveys the intended scenario. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriateness. No exclusions are mentioned, so it stops short of a 5.

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