get_air_quality

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the data source, the conditional behavior based on parameters, the return shape (station reading vs city overview with worst stations), and AQI interpretation bands. It does not discuss rate limits or failure behavior, but for a read-only data lookup the disclosed context is strong.

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?

Three concise, information-dense sentences: scope and metrics, call patterns, AQI thresholds. No fluff, no repetition of schema details, and the most important usage guidance appears early.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains what the agent can expect to receive (nearest station reading or average AQI plus worst stations) and how to interpret the AQI values. Parameter semantics, invocation modes, and data scope are all covered sufficiently for correct selection and invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining that lat/lon select the nearest station and that omitting them triggers a city-wide overview. This is genuinely useful for choosing whether to pass parameters.

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 in Yerevan from the live sensor network, with named metrics (PM2.5, PM10, NO2, US EPA AQI, temperature, humidity). The 'current' and 'live sensor network' framing distinguishes it from siblings like get_air_quality_forecast and get_station_history.

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?

Explicitly describes two call modes: with lon/lat to get the nearest station, and without location to get a city overview. This gives clear behavioral guidance on how to use the tool, and the 'current' vs forecast/history context implicitly routes the agent away from the relevant siblings.

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