weather_get_alerts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add meaningful qualifiers like 'active' and 'severe-weather,' indicating that the returned alerts are current and specific to severe conditions. However, it does not explain response format, potential lack of alerts, or any side effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, ten-word sentence that is direct and free of fluff. Every word adds value, and the most important information (what resource is retrieved and for what input) is front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand its core function. It could mention that the response is a list of alerts, but the verb 'get' and plural 'alerts and warnings' make that reasonably clear. The lack of output schema doesn't create a major gap here.

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 input schema already covers the sole parameter 'location' with a clear description ('City name, postal code, or lat,long'), giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter syntax or examples, so it does not materially enhance what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and identifies the exact resource ('active severe-weather alerts and warnings') and scope ('for a location'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling weather tools like weather_get_current_weather and weather_get_forecast, which cover different data types.

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 for retrieving alert data at a given location, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tool names are available but the description itself offers no direct comparison or guidance, making the usage context only implicit.

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