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

With no annotations to lean on, the description still discloses the key behavioral facts: only active alerts are returned, coverage is by location inclusion, the risk level is colour-coded, and an empty list is returned when nothing is active. It omits any note on permissions, rate limits, or result size limits, and gives no hint about the expected site_code format.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then return contents, then the only parameter detail worth stating. No filler.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the read-only nature, the empty-result case, and the return contents reasonably well. The significant gap is site_code: with no schema documentation and no pointer to search_locations, an agent has no way to know what a valid site code looks like or where to get one.

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 usefully documents lang as 'en or fr', which the schema does not, but adds almost nothing about site_code beyond it identifying a location — no format, source, or example, even though that is the one required parameter.

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 and resource (retrieve active official weather alerts) and scopes it to a location identified by site code. The 'by site code' qualifier implicitly separates it from get_alerts_by_coordinates, but it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is left partly to inference.

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?

The mention of 'site code' hints that this is the site-code variant rather than the coordinate variant, which is only implied. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over get_alerts_by_coordinates, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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