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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds important behavioral context: omitted dates default to today's UTC date and are echoed in requestedDate, expired notices may still describe recurring regulations, and expiry is not evidence that access is open. It also directs the caller to verify current law with the linked source, which is valuable interpretation guidance for a read-only, open-world data tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by invocation details and cautionary notes. The phrase 'explicit scope uncertainty and recurrence hints' is slightly opaque, but the text is appropriately sized for the tool.

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 read-only annotations and existing output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, default date handling, expired-notice caveat, and verification requirement. It is only slightly incomplete because it does not explain the routeId parameter or clarify the relationship between notices and routes/peaks.

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 67%, and the schema already explains the date default and slug meaning. The description reinforces the slug and date usage but does not mention the routeId parameter at all, leaving a clear parameter-semantics gap.

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 a specific verb and resource: reading dated notices, including publication validity, scope uncertainty, and recurrence hints. It is distinguishable from the sibling tools by its focus on notices rather than routes, weather, or huts, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

It implies usage by saying to supply slug and trip date, and warns to verify current law with the linked source. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose get_notices over related tools such as get_route or get_weather, nor does it state 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.