nps_alerts

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so no safety warning is needed. The description adds the 'current' temporal scope and alert categories, which is useful. However, it doesn't describe the return format or any limitations beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and includes a brief usage note without excess. Every sentence 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with fully described parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and use case. It could mention that results are returned as a list, but the schema and name make this reasonably clear, so the gap is minor.

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?

Schema descriptions cover both parameters fully (limit default, park_code examples). The description reinforces the park_code filter but adds no new semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 current park alerts and enumerates alert categories (closures, dangers, cautions, general information). It differentiates from sibling NPS tools by focusing on alerts rather than parks, campgrounds, or events.

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?

It provides a clear use case ('checking conditions before visiting') and explicitly mentions optional park code filtering, which signals when to use park_code. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough from sibling tools.

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