get_pollen_current

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses several useful traits: the operation returns 'the most recent hours of data,' covers seven pollen types, and comes from MeteoSwiss. It omits other behavioral details such as units, handling of missing data, station-validation behavior, and rate limits, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 three tight sentences that front-load what the tool does, then enumerate the returned pollen types and cite the source. There is no wasted language and each sentence contributes useful information.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it explains the operation, the returned pollen types, the recency of data, and the source. With no output schema and no annotations, it could additionally mention units or response format, but the core information needed to invoke the tool is 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?

There is one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already explains that 'station' is a station code with examples and points to list_pollen_stations. The description adds only that the station is a 'pollen monitoring station' and does not contribute syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get current hourly pollen concentrations at a MeteoSwiss pollen monitoring station.' It also enumerates the seven pollen types returned and names the data source. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool get_pollen_daily.

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 phrase 'current hourly' implies this tool is for recent/current data rather than daily summaries, which hints at when to use it over get_pollen_daily. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as obtaining a station code via list_pollen_stations.

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