get_alerts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe response format, error conditions, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. While 'Get' implies reading data, the description lacks the behavioral details needed for confident tool invocation.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address purpose and parameters. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality, followed by parameter details. While efficient, the separation with 'Args:' creates minor formatting inconsistency but doesn't significantly impact readability.

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 tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation in the description, but the description lacks context about what 'weather alerts' includes, data sources, or typical response structure. It meets basic requirements but leaves gaps in operational understanding.

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 description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the 'state' parameter as 'Two-letter US state code (e.g. CA, NY)', providing crucial format guidance that the schema lacks. For a single parameter tool with no schema descriptions, this compensation is effective, though it could mention validation rules or error handling for invalid codes.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('weather alerts for a US state'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'get_forecast', which likely provides different weather data. The description avoids tautology by explaining what the tool does rather than just restating the name.

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. While it mentions the sibling tool 'get_forecast' exists in the context, the description itself contains no comparison, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria. Users must infer usage from the tool name and description alone without explicit guidance.

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