weather_warnings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context by specifying data source ('from the JMA') and 'Active' status, clarifying that only currently active warnings are returned. This goes beyond annotation details while not contradicting them.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. Every word contributes meaning (active, Japanese, weather warnings/advisories, region, JMA). Front-loaded and efficient.

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 effectively covers purpose and scope. It could mention behavior when no warnings exist or how to interpret the output, but the combination of description and schema is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'area' with a clear description ('A JMA office code or region name.'). The tool description only mentions 'for a region' which adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 it returns active Japanese weather warnings and advisories for a region from the JMA. It uses a specific verb/resource combination and is easily distinguished from sibling tools like weather_forecast and weather_areas.

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 implies use for checking current warnings/advisories but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like weather_forecast, nor does it mention any exclusions or specific conditions. Guidance is only implicit via the term 'warnings and advisories'.

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