air_quality_current_conditions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the POST body matches a specific API reference and that optional fields are forwarded, but it doesn't explain the response format, error behavior, or any side effects. This is partial disclosure for a read-only query tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and immediately followed by the external API reference. It is concise, informative, and avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 low schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the essential required parameter and points to external documentation, but it omits a full list of optional parameters and details about the return structure. The external link helps, but the description alone is not fully self-contained for an agent to use correctly without additional research.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions, and the description compensates by clarifying that `location` must contain latitude and longitude. It also mentions `extraComputations` as an example of an optional field and provides an external API reference, but it does not enumerate all acceptable optional fields, leaving some ambiguity.

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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving current air quality conditions at a location, specifying 'hourly indexes' and 'optional pollutants via extraComputations'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like air_quality_forecast and air_quality_history, and the reference to the specific API endpoint adds precision.

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 states that a `location` with latitude and longitude is required, which is a clear usage prerequisite. It implies the tool is for current conditions, naturally distinguishing it from forecast/history tools, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over siblings.

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