AQI Forecast by Coordinate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that it covers US locations and is from EPA AirNow, but does not expand on behavioral traits like rate limits, data freshness, or response format. Given annotation richness, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 sentence plus data source, with no fluff. Every word is necessary and front-loaded, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

The description is complete for a simple forecast tool: it specifies the purpose, geographic scope, and data source. With an output schema available, the agent can infer return values. Minor omission might be clarifying that 'multi-day' is a default range, but schema handles defaults.

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?

Input schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters (lat, lng, distance, date) with clear examples and defaults. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it provides a multi-day AQI forecast for a US latitude/longitude location, sourced from EPA AirNow. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like current_latlng or forecast_zip.

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 US lat/lng forecast but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., forecast_zip for ZIP codes) or when not to use it (e.g., outside US). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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