air_quality_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a POST lookup against a Google API and constrains `hours` to 1–720, but it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or response/error behavior, leaving important operational details implicit.

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 a single dense sentence with no filler; it front-loads the purpose and packs in the endpoint, required parameter, and time-parameter options/range efficiently.

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 tool with no output schema and an open additional-properties schema, the description gives enough to construct a basic request (endpoint, required param, time-filter options). Yet it omits response shape, pagination, units, and exact formats for `dateTime`/`period`, relying on the linked API docs, so completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 `additionalProperties: true`, so the description adds critical semantics by naming the required `location` and optional time parameters (`period`, `dateTime`, `hours`) and the valid hours range. It compensates for the low schema coverage, though it does not specify formats for all params.

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 Google Air Quality API historical hourly data and names the exact history lookup endpoint, which distinguishes it from current conditions and forecast siblings. However, it lacks an explicit action verb (e.g., 'retrieves'), so it falls short of the top tier for verb+resource phrasing.

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 gives clear invocation context: it requires `location` and directs the agent to use `period`, `dateTime`, or `hours` (1–720) as time filters. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, but 'historical hourly data' makes the appropriate use case clear.

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