air_quality_live

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering core behavioral traits. The description adds that the data is 'live-only' and from OpenAQ, but does not elaborate on rate limits, data freshness, or other operational details beyond what annotations imply.

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 very concise with a single, front-loaded sentence. However, it is written in German, which may be a barrier for an English-centric AI agent, reducing its effectiveness. The brevity provides minimal information, making it efficient but potentially incomplete.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally complete, covering the input and data source. However, it does not describe the return format or structure, and with no output schema, the agent lacks details about what data to expect.

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 description mentions 'einer Stadt' (a city), indicating that the 'slug' parameter is a city identifier. With 0% schema description coverage, this adds necessary context, but it does not specify the format or how to obtain a valid slug, leaving partial ambiguity for the agent.

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 it provides live air quality data for a city via OpenAQ, clearly indicating the resource and scope. The 'live' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling 'air_quality' tool, but the use of German language and jargon like 'Tier C' slightly reduces clarity for an English-speaking AI agent.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name suggests 'live' vs. possibly historical data, no direct comparison or exclusion conditions are stated, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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