get_air_quality

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the data source (Open-Meteo), no API key requirement, and the specific outputs (PM2.5, PM10, etc.) and AQI indices. It also mentions the coverage of cities and a future coordinate feature, providing good transparency.

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?

Three sentences, each concise and informative. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and subsequent sentences add key details without redundancy.

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 tool has an output schema and a single parameter, the description covers purpose, output, coverage, and future capability. It lacks explicit error handling or fallback for unrecognized locations, but overall it is complete enough for straightforward use.

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 a description of 'location' parameter. The description adds value by explaining the coverage of ~80 PH cities and how to handle unlisted locations in the future, enriching the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 real-time air quality for a Philippine city, specifying pollutants and AQI indices. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like weather or climate tools by focusing on air quality.

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 notes 'no API key' and covers ~80 major PH cities, implying context for usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'get_weather_forecast' for weather data, so guidance is clear but not explicit about when not to use.

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