AQI Forecast by US ZIP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds forecast time range and pollutants but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or data update frequency.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and source without superfluous words.

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 detailed schema annotations and output schema, the description covers the essential aspects. However, it omits mention of the distance radius parameter's behavior and the fact that it uses nearest monitor, which could be helpful.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about forecast content (ozone, PM2.5) but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema's detailed descriptions.

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 multi-day AQI forecast for a US ZIP code, specifying pollutants (ozone, PM2.5) and source (EPA AirNow). It distinguishes from current AQI tools but does not explicitly differentiate from the lat/lng forecast sibling.

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 when to use (need AQI forecast for US ZIP) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives like lat/lng-based tools. The context of siblings is not addressed.

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