weather_warnings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Active' implies only currently-in-effect warnings are returned and include_green clarifies what is excluded by default, which is useful. It does not mention data freshness, source update cadence, or any auth constraints, leaving some behavioral gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one line, followed by a compact args list where each entry earns its place. Slightly list-heavy but no wasted prose.

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 explained with defaults and examples. Complete enough for a two-param read tool; only minor gaps around data freshness remain.

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: area is given concrete examples ('Lisboa', 'Madeira', 'Açores') plus the omit-for-country semantics, and include_green is explained with its default. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 resource (active IPMA weather warnings) and enumerates the warning categories covered, which lets an agent distinguish it from weather_forecast or sea_forecast. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives.

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 area parameter documentation implies when to scope down ('omit for the whole country') and include_green clarifies the default behavior. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over weather_forecast or sea_forecast, so selection relies on the agent inferring from names.

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