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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only *active* alerts are returned and that they are from an *official* source, which is real behavioral value; but it says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, return shape, units for lat/lon, or behavior on invalid coordinates.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and no filler. It is arguably over-terse for a 3-parameter tool, but nothing written is wasted.

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 small, non-destructive lookup with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose and the one non-obvious parameter constraint. It is still thin on return values ('alerts' — what fields?), coordinate formatting, and empty-result behavior, which an agent would need to chain this reliably.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add the only real constraint present anywhere: lang accepts 'en or fr' (and the default is en per schema), which prevents a bad call. lat/lon are only obliquely explained by 'covering a latitude and longitude point' — no ranges, units, or sign conventions.

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 official weather alerts at a latitude/longitude point. It implicitly separates itself from get_alerts_by_place by stating the coordinate input, but never names the sibling or explicitly contrasts them.

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?

'covering a latitude and longitude point' implies you should use this when you have coordinates rather than a place name, which hints at the get_alerts_by_place alternative. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no statement about what to do if the point has no alerts.

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