get_warnings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden alone. It does disclose meaningful behavior — only active warnings are returned (not historical/archived), and area matching is a substring rather than exact — but it says nothing about auth, rate limits, or freshness.

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?

Two telegraphic sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the parameter notes. Efficient, if slightly clipped in style.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and both parameters are covered in the prose. For a low-risk read tool this is close to complete, though a note that it is read-only would remove the last ambiguity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that 'area' is a substring match with a concrete example ('Skåne') and that 'lang' accepts 'sv' or 'en'. The schema alone would leave both parameters opaque.

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: retrieving active SMHI weather warnings. The resource 'warnings' is naturally distinct from the sibling tools (forecast, observation, station), though the description never names them explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives among find_nearest_station, get_observation, or get_forecast. The word 'Active' hints at scope but the agent must infer the rest.

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