Air Quality – 48-Hour Forecast

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does usefully mention that up to 48 records are returned and that no data is returned when unavailable. However, it does not describe behavior around missing or conflicting location parameters, invalid inputs, or response timezone/localization nuances, leaving some uncertainty.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence explains the core return value and scope, and the second succinctly caps the record count and addresses the empty-data case. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a read-only forecast tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a solid picture of the response contents and shape. It does not restate the lat/lng-or-place requirement (which is covered in the schema), but it could have added a brief note about how locale or aqiStandard affect the output. Overall, it is largely complete.

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% parameter description coverage, documenting lat, lng, place, locale, and aqiStandard with constraints and defaults. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the general output content, so the baseline of 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 states a specific action ('returns an hourly air quality forecast'), a clear resource (air quality for the next 48 hours), and the contents (AQI, pollutant concentrations, dominant pollutant, category). It also naturally distinguishes itself from air_quality_latest by explicitly mentioning the forecast horizon and hourly granularity.

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 clearly conveys that this tool is for future-facing air quality data over a 48-hour window, which sets it apart from 'latest' siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like air_quality_latest or weather_forecast, nor does it state conditions such as 'use this when you need forecast rather than current conditions'.

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