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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context about aggregating from multiple official sources and clearly explains that the source/severity breakdown reflects the total real count, not just the sampled alerts.

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 concise: two sentences plus a clearly formatted Args section. Information is front-loaded with the main purpose, and no words are 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 simple one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (breakdown by source/severity and a sample of individual alerts), the sources involved, and the limit behavior. Annotations handle safety context.

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?

The schema fully describes the limit parameter with range, default, and the note about the breakdown always reflecting the total. The description repeats this information without adding new semantic details, so it aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool returns currently active alerts aggregated from multiple official sources, listing specific source types (DGT, EONET/EFFIS, MeteoAlarm, NWS). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on stations, coverage, and fuel prices.

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 usage context is implied by the description—this tool is for retrieving active alerts—but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus the sibling tools or when not to use it. No alternatives are mentioned.

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