air_quality_by_coords

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The one genuine addition is the 'closest WAQI station' resolution behavior, which tells the agent the result is nearest-match rather than exact-point. No detail on coverage gaps or error behavior when no station exists.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and the key qualifier (closest station). Nothing to trim.

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?

With rich annotations and an output schema present, the definition doesn't need to explain return values. It is nearly complete for a two-parameter read tool, lacking only a note on station coverage/fallback behavior if no station is near the coordinates.

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 both latitude and longitude are already documented as decimal degrees. The description restates the lat/lon concept without adding format, range, or coordinate-system specifics beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Get), resource (air quality), and the precise scope (closest WAQI station to a given lat/lon). It implicitly differentiates from the Dubai-specific siblings by being coordinate-driven, but never names air_quality_dubai or weather_by_coords to make the routing explicit.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is for arbitrary coordinates. There is no explicit when-to-use vs air_quality_dubai or air_quality_dubai_stations, and no note on what happens when no station is nearby.

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