env_air_limits_check

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

The description adds behavior beyond annotations by stating 'Rein lokale Berechnung (kein Netzwerk)', confirming the computation is local and idempotent. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent, so the description reinforces and adds the local aspect.

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 well-structured with <use_case> and <important_notes> tags, making it scannable. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections duplicate some schema information, adding slight redundancy.

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 the simple tool (one object parameter with three fields), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, supported pollutants, averaging periods, return type, and the local computation nature. An output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return structure.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters (value, pollutant, averaging_period) with German text, so schema description coverage is high. The tool description lists supported pollutants and averaging periods but does not add new semantic details beyond what the schema provides.

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 evaluates a measured air pollutant against Swiss LRV and WHO 2021 limits, using specific verbs like 'Bewertet'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like env_noise_limits_check by focusing on air pollutants and regulatory standards.

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 <use_case> tag explicitly defines when to use the tool: to classify a measured pollutant value against Swiss and WHO limits. It provides context but does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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