nws_alert_detail

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful return-content context (complete description, instruction text, affected areas, timing) but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as pagination, response size, or rate limits. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and every word adds value. It avoids fluff and redundant phrasing, making it highly efficient.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what the response contains. It lacks minor context like explicit statement that it returns a single alert object, but the overall guidance is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter alert_id is already well-described with an example URN. The description reinforces that the ID identifies a specific alert but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 function: 'Get full details for a specific weather alert by ID.' It uses a specific verb, identifies the resource (weather alert), and explicitly distinguishes this detail action from list/search siblings by requiring an ID. It also enumerates the kind of information returned.

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 this is the tool to use when you already have an alert ID and want complete details. It provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or name them (e.g., nws_alerts_active for listing alerts), so it falls short of a 5.

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