get_air_quality

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and uses it well: it reveals the Europe-only pollen limitation, explains that pollen returns None outside Europe, discloses both EAQI and USAQI interpretation bands, and describes the current/hourly/pollen/location output structure. It does not cover error behavior or data freshness, but the key gotchas an agent needs are disclosed. No contradiction with annotations exists since none are provided.

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 front-loaded — the first sentence states the core function — and uses clear section dividers (Examples, Provides, Health Guidelines, Use this tool when) that make it scannable. It is long, however: the Returns prose partially duplicates the existing output schema, and the full AQI/UV interpretation tables add bulk, so not every sentence strictly earns its place.

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 five-parameter tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, when-to-use scenarios, paramter semantics, output shape, and an edge case (pollen outside Europe). The notable omission is a cross-reference to the sibling search_location/search_location_swiss tools for resolving the place-based example queris ('Zurich') into the latitude/longitude the API actually requires — a minor but real integration gap.

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 0%, so the description's Args section does the heavy lifting — and it adds genuine meaning: decimal-degree units for coordinates, the 1-5 range for forecast_days, defaults for forecast_days/include_pollen/timezone, and the Europe-only caveat for pollen. This fully compenates for the empty schema. The only gap is that timezone lacks format guidance (e.g., IANA timezone names).

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb and resource — 'Retrieves air quality forecast including AQI, pollutants, UV index, and pollen data' — and enumerates its data contents, making the tool's scope unmistakable. This clearly distinguishes it from sibing tools like get_weather or get_marine_conditions without requiring the agent to open any schema.

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 this tool when' section lists four concrete scenarios (asthma/allergy outdoor planning, exercise assessment, pollen checks, UV sun safety) that give an agent clear selection context. However, it stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming an alternative tool like get_weather for weather-specific queris, so it lacks the explicit exclusions that would earn a 5.

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