zurich_air_quality

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds helpful context: data is updated hourly, sourced from Umwelt- und Gesundheitsschutz Stadt Zürich, and returns current values with units. No contradictions with annotations, but could mention authorization or rate limits.

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 concise at two short paragraphs with a 'Returns' section. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and data source. Every sentence adds value, though structure could be slightly improved by grouping related info.

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 tool's complexity (three parameters, output schema exists), the description covers data source, update frequency, and return type ('current pollutant values per station with units'). It lacks examples of output format but is sufficient with the output schema present.

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 provides descriptions for each parameter (limit, station, parameter). The tool description lists example pollutants and station values, adding some context beyond the schema. However, it does not fully explain the meaning of parameters beyond what's in the schema, which has 0% coverage per context signals.

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 provides hourly updated air quality measurements from Zurich, listing specific pollutants (NO2, O3, PM10, etc.). The verb 'liefert' (delivers) and resource 'Luftqualitätsmessungen' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools, which cover different Zurich data like weather, parking, or politics.

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 mentions data source and update frequency but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Some usage context is implied (e.g., for real-time air quality), but no exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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