knmi_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 only the API key requirement, which is a prerequisite, not behavioral context. No additional traits such as rate limits or error handling are disclosed.

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) and front-loaded with the key purpose. However, it omits parameter semantics, which would add valuable information without much bloat.

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 tool with one optional parameter and clear annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and a requirement. However, it lacks parameter explanation and usage guidance, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 input schema defines a single parameter 'top' with default and bounds, but the description provides no explanation of its meaning or purpose. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent is left to guess that 'top' limits the number of warnings.

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 ('current KNMI weather warnings'), and the scope ('for the Netherlands'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools, such as knmi_earthquakes or knmi_latest_observations.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires KNMI_API_KEY') but provides no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like knmi_datasets or knmi_latest_observations. No guidance on when not to use it.

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