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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds context the annotations cannot: a 10-minute refresh cadence, per-source provenance, and a data-quality caveat ('automatic estimates, rated a step lower'). It also discloses that render returns a link, GeoJSON and KML, and that update_map can later modify the result.

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?

Front-loaded well with the core purpose in the opening clause, but the body is a dense ~200-word run-on that blends source enumeration, parameter explanation, and sibling cross-selling. Several clauses are decorative detail ('where the winds have already been') rather than decision-relevant, so it is over-stuffed rather than tight.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so: it lists the fields each hazard carries (kind, level, area, times, source link) and notes the map shows outlines. Combined with the source list, freshness, and parameter coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 60% (title and render have no schema description), so the description must compensate. It fully explains render's semantics and return artifacts, and expands on the levels (severe, warning, watch, advisory) and peril categories in prose. Only the title parameter is never addressed, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (retrieves warnings and events in force right now) and enumerates the exact feeds involved (Environment Agency flood warnings, NWS warnings, USGS ShakeMap earthquakes, NHC storms, GDACS). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling check_live_hazards ('Which of the user's own places are affected'). An agent can identify this as the global live-hazard feed without opening any schema.

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?

Names the alternatives and the condition that selects each: check_live_hazards for the user's own places, render_map with a live_hazards layer for a keepable map. It even states an explicit when-not for a parameter: 'Set render to true only when the user wants to keep or share the map.' Nothing is left to inference.

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