Pollen – 48-Hour Forecast

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful traits: returns 'up to 48 hourly records,' handles the no-data case, and warns that per-species breakdown is conditional on regional support. It does not cover error behavior, data freshness, or any operational constraints, but for a simple read-oriented forecast tool the key edge cases are surfaced.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the second sentence efficiently covers the maximum record count and the no-data case. Minor redundancy between '48 hours' and '48 hourly records' is the only blemish.

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 moderate-complexity tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the return content and the main edge cases adequately. It falls short of complete because it does not describe the record structure or units, and it leaves the distinction from pollen_latest to inference rather than stating it.

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 the baseline is 3. The schema already thoroughly documents each parameter, including mutual exclusivity ('Never send both place and lat/lng'), defaults, and required-if logic. The description adds only marginal context by linking speciesRisk to the per-species breakdown mentioned in the output.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Returns an hourly pollen forecast for the next 48 hours') and details the content: tree, grass, and weed counts, risk levels, and per-species breakdown. It is clearly a forecast tool rather than a current-conditions tool, though it never explicitly names the sibling pollen_latest to draw the contrast.

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?

Usage context is implied by the 'next 48 hours' framing, so an agent can infer this is for forward-looking pollen data. However, with five siblings including pollen_latest and air_quality_forecast, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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