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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that alerts are official danger warnings, in Norwegian, covering Norway/waters. This is useful. But it doesn't disclose behaviors like alert significance levels (yellow/orange/red), update cadence, or what happens with benign conditions (empty list?). Since no annotations exist, this is a moderate gap.

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 sentences, focused. The most important facts (what it is, scope, optional filters) are front-loaded. No filler. Could potentially merge the Norwegian text note, but it's relevant for the agent to know.

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 2-param optional tool, it's decent. Tells coverage, type, and language. Missing: what the response shape looks like (no output schema), whether alerts are paginated or have severity levels, and whether an empty result is possible. Because it deals with official warnings, an agent might need to know how to interpret severity.

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 100% (both params described as latitude/longitude decimal degrees). The description adds a little: omitting coordinates yields all alerts. But it doesn't explain the relationship (e.g., proximity radius) or behavior when only one coordinate is provided. Baseline 3 is fair since schema already documents units.

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 (get weather alerts) and the scope (Norway and waters), plus the alert types. Siblings are focused on forecast/station/etc, so purpose is clear, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_forecast or get_nowcast beyond the 'danger warnings' angle.

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?

Gives a clear usage hint: omit coordinates for all current alerts, likely imply include coordinates for local alerts. It mentions source (MET Norway) and coverage area. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this over get_forecast or get_nowcast, though the danger-warning nature is implicit.

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