air_quality_current

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the data source and that both an index and pollutant levels are returned, but says nothing about units, update cadence, coverage, or rate limits. Adequate given annotation coverage, but not rich.

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 well-formed sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and zero padding. It is sized appropriately for a two-parameter read tool, though it offers nothing beyond the minimum.

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?

For a simple, annotation-covered, two-parameter read tool with a full schema and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned and from where. Missing are the units/dialect of the AQI scale and the differentiation from related air-quality siblings, which keeps it below a 5.

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% and both parameters (latitude, longitude) are documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics such as accepted ranges, decimal precision, or whether coordinates must be land-based. 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 and resource ('Get current air quality index and pollutant levels') plus the upstream provider (Open-Meteo). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling air-quality tools such as openaq_air_quality or air_quality_forecast.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of openaq_air_quality (a different provider) or air_quality_forecast (future data). The agent must infer the split between 'current' and 'forecast', and between Open-Meteo and OpenAQ, on its own.

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