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. It mentions the data source ('NWS API') and that it 'returns formatted alert information', which adds some context. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'formatted' specifically entails, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds value without redundancy, such as specifying the API source and return format. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, parameter, and return behavior. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it could benefit from more behavioral context like error handling or usage constraints.

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 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the 'state' parameter as 'Two-letter US state code (e.g. CA, NY, TX)', which adds crucial semantic context not present in the schema. This effectively documents the single parameter, though it doesn't cover edge cases or validation rules.

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 specific verb ('Get'), resource ('active weather alerts'), and scope ('for a US state'). It distinguishes itself by specifying the data source ('NWS API') and the geographic limitation, making the purpose unambiguous even without sibling tools for comparison.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'active weather alerts' and 'US state', suggesting it should be used when such alerts are needed. However, there are no explicit guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage scenarios.

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