Weather Alerts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful 'active' filter constraint, but its return-value detail (event type, severity, headline, area, expiry) largely duplicates the existing output schema rather than disclosing new behavior.

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 with zero waste: the primary action and scope lead, the calling convention follows, and the return summary closes. Every clause 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?

With a rich annotation set, a fully described single parameter, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema that carries return structure, the description supplies everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool. Nothing material is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'area' parameter and even notes that full state names are accepted. The description's examples (CA, TX, FL) and mention of marine areas add marginal value, but its 'two-letter state code' framing is slightly narrower than the schema, so it does not exceed baseline.

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 and resource ('List active NWS weather alerts') plus the scope (US state or marine area) and enumerates the alert categories covered. It clearly distinguishes itself from weather_forecast and weather_current siblings without needing to name them.

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?

Usage is implied through the required input ('Pass a two-letter state code like CA, TX, FL'), which tells the agent how to call it, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over weather_current or weather_forecast, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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