air_quality_forecast

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful context that the output is hourly and sourced from Open-Meteo, but it does not disclose pollutants, units, coverage, or rate limits. The added value is modest but not contradictory.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to identifying the action, the data granularity, and the upstream source.

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 tool is simple with three documented parameters and annotations covering safety. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain the returned forecast fields, pollutants, units, or spatial coverage. It is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool but not fully complete for interpreting results.

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%, and the schema already explains latitude, longitude, and days including the default and maximum. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get hourly air quality forecast.' It also names the source, Open-Meteo, which distinguishes it from OpenAQ-based siblings. However, it does not explicitly contrast with air_quality_current or weather_forecast, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent can infer it is for future air quality rather than current conditions, but the definition does not say when to choose it over air_quality_current, openaq_air_quality, or weather_forecast.

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