air_quality_forecast

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. It adds useful context by indicating this is a POST request and linking to the official Google Air Quality API reference, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not mention response format, authentication, rate limits, or side effects, leaving notable gaps.

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 one efficient sentence that leads with the core purpose and packs in the POST body reference, required parameter, and time-range options without filler. The long URL is justified as the authoritative API documentation link.

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?

Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally explain return values and operational behavior. It gives enough to construct a request via the external docs and time selections, but it omits response structure, authentication needs, and error handling, making it only partially complete.

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 only defines `location` with lat/long constraints but has no property descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by requiring `location` and naming the additional body fields (`period`, `dateTime`, `hours`) not present in the schema, which is essential because `additionalProperties: true` allows these fields.

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 an hourly air quality forecast for a time range or specific hour. It names the exact resource and verb, and the temporal scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like air_quality_current_conditions and air_quality_history.

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 `location` is required and explains the three time-selection options (`period`, `dateTime`, `hours`), giving clear guidance on how to adjust the forecast window. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the current-conditions or history alternatives, nor does it list exclusions.

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