get_heat_safety_advice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the valid values for heat_risk_level (LOW, MODERATE, HIGH, EXTREME) and its source, which is valuable context. It doesn't describe output format, but the output schema exists to cover that. No contradictions found.

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 brief Args section. It front-loads the purpose and keeps parameter details in a structured list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant content.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It states the purpose, defines both parameters with valid values/context, and notes the data dependency. There are no gaps that would prevent an agent from invoking the tool correctly.

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 is sparse (0% coverage), but the description compensates thoroughly. It defines heat_risk_level with explicit allowed values and activity_type with examples ('jogging', 'construction work', 'elderly care', 'general'), giving an agent enough information to choose appropriate inputs.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('WHO/CDC safety recommendations'), and the condition ('based on the current heat risk level and the user's activity'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like geocode_location, get_weather_and_heat_risk, and find_cooling_spots by focusing on safety advice rather than location or environmental data.

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 description explicitly mentions that heat_risk_level is 'obtained from get_weather_and_heat_risk', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool (after fetching the heat risk). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the dependency implies the correct sequencing and purpose.

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