get_warnings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the language restriction and return content, which is helpful. But it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it cover auth requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects—though for a simple get operation, this is acceptable.

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 (4 sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds necessary detail (source, language constraint, return content). No superfluous information.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema required beyond description), the description fully covers what the tool does, its constraints, and what it returns. It is contextually complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. Since there are no parameters, the description does not need to add meaning beyond what the schema provides. The description appropriately notes the absence of a language argument, which adds value beyond the schema.

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 retrieves EMY's national emergency weather bulletins as free text. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the source and content type, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its closest sibling 'get_alerts'.

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 clear usage context: bulletins are only in Greek and the tool takes no language argument. This helps the agent understand when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternative tools.

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