get_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 for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any limitations of the alerts data. The only transparency is that it is a 'get' operation, which is implicitly read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 extremely concise, consisting of one sentence for the purpose and a brief argument explanation. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no unnecessary fluff, earning its place every word.

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 parameter and an output schema, the description provides the core purpose and parameter semantics. It does not cover edge cases like invalid states or data sources, but given the low complexity and existing output schema, it is reasonably complete. The lack of usage guidance is a minor gap that is already penalized under usage_guidelines.

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 only defines 'state' as a string with no description, giving 0% coverage. The description compensates by specifying a two-letter US state code and providing examples (CA, NY), which is essential for correct invocation. This fully clarifies the expected format.

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 'Get weather alerts for a US state' using a specific verb and resource, and the scope is explicit. This distinguishes it from the sibling get_forecast, which presumably returns forecasts rather than 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 implies that the tool is used for weather alerts, but it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this vs. get_forecast or provide any exclusions. No alternatives are mentioned, leaving usage context merely implied.

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