cyclone_explain_alert_level

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only lists topics and does not state what the tool returns, whether it explains all levels when no parameter is passed, or whether it provides actionable guidance vs. static definitions. Minimal behavioral context beyond the core purpose is provided.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and relevant level names without waste. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose.

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 explanatory tool with one optional parameter, the description is largely complete: it names the subject, the geographic context, and the specific alert levels. It would be slightly stronger if it explicitly indicated behavior for the no-parameter case or the response type, but the low complexity makes this a minor gap.

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 description already fully documents the single optional parameter and its accepted values, and the tool description simply mirrors those values. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no meaningful semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Explain') tied to a concrete resource ('French cyclone alert levels used around La Réunion/Mayotte') and enumerates the covered levels. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools that fetch sources, activity, archives, or exposure 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 intended use is implied by the action and subject matter: an agent should call this when the user wants an explanation of alert levels. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to alternatives like cyclone_get_current_activity for current alert status.

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