AQI Forecast by Coordinate

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a multi-day forecast (not single point) and limited to US locations. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss rate limits or error conditions.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that convey the essential function and source. Every word is meaningful, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

While the tool has an output schema that likely covers return values, the description omits details like the number of forecast days, that it returns AQI values, or that it only works for US coordinates. For a tool with many siblings, more context would help selection.

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% with descriptions for all 4 parameters (lat, lng, distance, date). The description does not add any additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline expectation.

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 'Multi-day AQI forecast for a US lat/lng', specifying the verb (forecast), resource (AQI based on coordinates), and geographic scope (US). This distinguishes it from siblings like weather.airnow.current_latlng (current conditions) and weather.airnow.forecast_zip (forecast by zip code).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention cases where a zip code is available (suggesting forecast_zip) or when current data is needed (current_latlng). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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