get_pollen_daily

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (daily readings for 7 pollen types) and the data source, but leaves out units of concentration, whether readings are nullable on non-sampling days, and any rate or auth characteristics.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the return contents, then the source. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema, this is nearly complete: intent, return contents, and data source are all covered. Only measurement units and missing-data behavior are absent, which is minor for this complexity level.

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% and already documents the station code format and the default/max day window. The description only restates the day-window concept, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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: daily pollen concentration averages at a MeteoSwiss monitoring station, with readings for 7 pollen types. It is understandable without opening the schema, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings get_pollen_current or list_pollen_stations, which the agent must choose between.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'daily averages' and 'requested number of days' suggest a historical/aggregate window, contrasting implicitly with get_pollen_current. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no named alternative.

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