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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one real behavioral fact — results come back "worst first" — and notes the alerts are "active." Beyond that it says nothing about rate limits, whether state and lat/lon are mutually exclusive, how many alerts exist, or what happens when both are supplied; the rest of the text is a field list that duplicates the output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the resource and source before trailing into detail. It is dense but not padded, though the tail enumeration of return fields spends words where an output schema already exists.

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?

An output schema exists, so enumerating event/severity/onset/end/description is largely redundant, while genuinely load-bearing gaps remain: limit behavior, severity filter values, and the state-vs-coordinates relationship. Adequate to call the tool, but an agent will guess on two of five parameters.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only hints at state and the lat/lon point pair; limit (default 20) and severity are never mentioned, and there is no indication of accepted severity values, units, or whether state and coordinates are alternatives.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: active US weather warnings, watches and advisories sourced from the National Weather Service, scoped to a state or a point. That is concrete enough to separate it from forecast-style siblings like us_weather_forecast, though the description never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

"For a state or a point" implies the two lookup modes an agent can pick from, which is useful routing. But there is no statement of when to use this over us_weather_forecast or weather_forecast, and no note that it returns only currently active alerts rather than historical or future ones.

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