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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two real traits: a hard cap of 25 ZIPs and that results are ordered 'worst first'. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, what an 'active alert' comprises, and the response shape — substantial gaps for a mutation-free but non-trivial 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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the core action and batch limit. The leading 'PRO.' token is unexplained filler that costs a bit of clarity.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves min_severity undefined, the response format unspecified, and auth expectations unstated. An agent could invoke it but could not confidently configure severity filtering or interpret results.

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%; only access_token is documented in the schema. The description never explains min_severity (its meaning, valid values, or default) even though 'worst first' hints at severity ordering, and it adds no detail on the zips array format beyond item count.

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+resource: check up to 25 ZIPs (stores, job sites, fleet depots, properties) for active alerts. The parenthetical examples clarify what a 'site' is, which helps separate it from state_alerts/weather_alerts, though it never explicitly addresses those siblings.

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?

Implies batch usage via 'up to 25 ZIPs ... at once' and bulk-check intent, but gives no explicit guidance on when to pick this over state_alerts or weather_alerts, nor any prerequisites for calling it.

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