nws_alerts_active

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to state that the operation is read-only. It does add scope information (alert types and filters) but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as default limit, pagination, or response format. This is a moderate addition beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences that are both informative. The first sentence states the core function, and the second lists the filter options. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 full schema coverage and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, it lacks guidance on how this tool relates to the sibling 'nws_alerts_by_state' and does not mention default behavior (e.g., what happens when no filters are provided). This creates a moderate gap in an ecosystem with many similar weather-related tools.

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?

Since the input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, the baseline is 3. The description merely lists the same filter categories already present in the schema (state, event, severity, urgency, certainty) without adding any additional semantics like value formats, parameter interactions, or default behavior. It adds no substantial value over the schema.

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 identifies the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('active weather alerts'), and lists the types of alerts (warnings, watches, advisories) and filter dimensions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the sibling tool 'nws_alerts_by_state' or 'nws_alert_detail', so it misses the highest score.

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 provides filter options but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'nws_alerts_by_state' or 'swpc_alerts'. It does not mention default behavior (e.g., no filters returns all active alerts) or any exclusions, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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