ig_alerts

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

Annotations only cover readOnly and openWorld; the description adds real behavior beyond that: newest-first ordering, verbatim IGEPN text, and the instruction to relay safety recommendations exactly as written. It omits rate limits, coverage/latency caveats, and what an empty result means, keeping it below 5.

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?

Front-loads the resource and provenance in the first sentence, then intent examples, then a tidy Args block. Every line is useful, though the phrasing is slightly verbose and the Args formatting leaks into the description body.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly describes what comes back (bulletin text and special reports, newest first) and how to handle safety content. It leaves minor gaps around time-window semantics and empty results, but is otherwise complete for a read-only alert feed.

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 0%, so the Args block carries the full load: it documents all three parameters with defaults (hours=48, n=10) and constraints (168=one week, max 50) plus a concrete volcano example ('Sangay'). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Recent IGEPN instant bulletins... and special volcano reports') with ordering ('newest first') and provenance ('as IGEPN wrote them'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling volcano_status, so it falls short of a 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?

Gives concrete trigger queries ('any volcano alerts', 'is there ash from the Sangay', 'lahar warnings') that map user intent to this tool. It never names an alternative or exclusion condition against volcano_status or latest_quakes, so it stops short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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