Canada Weather Alerts MCP

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose two useful traits beyond the schema: a hard radius cap of 300 km and that results include 'full text'. It omits auth/permission requirements (only implied by 'PRO' and the access_token schema note), result ordering, and what 'active' means.

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 compact sentence with the key constraints front-loaded; 'PRO' and 'with full text' both earn their place. Slightly clipped at the cost of clarity about defaults.

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?

No output schema and the description only says 'full text', leaving the alert payload structure, ordering, pagination and error behavior unexplained. For a tool requiring an auth token, this is under-specified.

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 only 33%, but the description compensates for the most important gap by giving the radius unit (km) and maximum (300). postal_code semantics are clear from the name; access_token is documented in the schema. Missing: what happens if radius_km is omitted (default?).

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 concrete verb-like action (retrieve) on a specific resource (active alerts) scoped by radius around a postal code. The 'PRO' marker and scope hint at the difference from weather_alerts, though the sibling distinction is not spelled out.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus weather_alerts or sites_check. The radius/postal-code scoping is implied but exclusions and prerequisites (e.g., needing a subscriber token) are left unstated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the 25-code cap and the 'worst first' ordering, but says nothing about auth requirements (only the schema hints at a token), what happens if the cap is exceeded, or whether it's strictly read-only.

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 efficient sentence with the key constraint (25 codes) and output ordering ('worst first') packed in. The leading 'PRO.' token is cryptic but short and presumably signals a tier.

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 and no annotations, the description should say more about what an alert result looks like and how 'worst first' is determined. It covers the core call correctly but leaves the agent guessing about return content and edge cases.

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 only 50%: access_token is documented in the schema but postal_codes is bare. The description partially compensates by clarifying that postal codes represent stores, job sites, and depots, but gives no format or country expectations for the strings.

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 ('Check') and resource ('postal codes') and states the payload clearly: active alerts for up to 25 locations. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from area_alerts or weather_alerts, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'at once' and the list of location types (stores, job sites, depots) imply batch triage usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and neither sibling is mentioned as an alternative.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it discloses several traits: free access, active-only alerts, Environment Canada as the source, first-three-character postal-code matching, and a top-3 result limit. It still omits return format and error or rate-limit behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 compact sentence front-loads cost, source, alert types, geographic scope, truncation behavior, and result limit. There is no filler beyond the useful 'FREE' cost signal.

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 simple one-parameter lookup, the description covers what is returned and the top-3 limit, but because there is no output schema it does not describe the response structure or empty/error cases. It is adequate but incomplete.

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 0% and only says postal_code is a string, but the description adds that it must be a Canadian postal code and only the first 3 characters are used. This meaningfully compensates for the undocumented parameter, though it leaves some ambiguity about whether full postal codes are accepted and truncated.

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 that the tool returns active Environment Canada warnings, watches, and advisories near a Canadian postal code and caps results at the top 3, so the resource and scope are clear. It does not explicitly explain how it differs from sibling area_alerts, so it is not a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and sibling area_alerts is not mentioned. Usage is only implied by the postal-code scope, leaving the agent without a routing rule.

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