swpc_alerts

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that the data is current and includes specific alert categories, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response format, rate limits, or whether no alerts returns an empty list. It adds some value beyond annotations but lacks rich behavioral context.

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 main action ('Get current space weather alerts and warnings from NOAA SWPC') and a second sentence adding useful detail. There is no waste 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?

For a simple, no-parameter, read-only tool with good annotations, the description covers the domain and content adequately. It does not describe return format, but given the simplicity and the lack of output schema, the description is reasonably complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly omits any parameter details. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 gets current space weather alerts and warnings from NOAA SWPC, and specifies the types (watches, warnings, alerts) and phenomena (geomagnetic storms, solar radiation, radio blackouts). This distinguishes it from siblings like swpc_kp_index, swpc_forecast, and nws_alerts_active.

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 usage context: for current space weather alerts. It does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools, but the specificity of 'current alerts from NOAA SWPC' provides clear context for when this should be used.

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