Weather alerts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get weather alerts,' which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the alerts include (e.g., severity, types). This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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 description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Get weather alerts for a state.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., alert details, format), potential errors, or usage constraints. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, the description should provide more context to aid the agent effectively.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'state' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it only mentions 'for a state' without detailing the parameter. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get weather alerts for a state.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('weather alerts'), and includes a scope ('for a state'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'get-forecast,' which likely provides different weather data, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the sibling tool 'get-forecast' or any other tools, nor does it specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage. This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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