get_warnings

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. The description lists the returned fields but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether data is cached or real-time, or any side effects. For a data-fetching tool, this is a notable gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that begins with the core purpose and then lists relevant fields. It is concise and informative without being verbose, though the field list is somewhat long. Overall, it 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It does list the key fields (e.g., nazwa_zdarzenia, stopien, prawdopodobienstwo), but it does not indicate the result structure (e.g., array of objects) or additional context like timezone or units. This is adequate but leaves some ambiguity.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. Since the schema is empty, the baseline is 4 for parameter semantics. The description appropriately focuses on the output rather than parameters, which is correct for a no-parameter tool.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('active IMGW meteorological warnings across Poland'), and lists the returned fields. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from weather/hydro siblings by focusing on warnings. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_weather or get_hydro. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer its applicability. No exclusions or contexts are provided.

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