Current AQI by Coordinate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that this provides observations (not forecasts) and references 'current_zip' for consistency. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context beyond structured data.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant information. First sentence states the core purpose, second provides cross-reference to sibling. Every word serves a purpose.

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 the existence of an output schema (as indicated by context signals), the description appropriately focuses on input semantics and behavior. References to 'current_zip' provide a completeness anchor. Only minor gap: no explicit mention of US-coordinate constraint beyond what's implied.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (lat, lng, distance). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('get'), resource ('Current AQI observations'), and scope ('near a US coordinate'). It distinguishes from sibling 'current_zip' by noting 'Same fields as current_zip' and provides source attribution 'EPA AirNow', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for coordinate-based queries versus zip code (via 'Same fields as current_zip'), but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'current_zip' or 'forecast_latlng'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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