get_flood_warnings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about update frequency ('Updated every 15 minutes'), which isn't in the schema, but doesn't cover other key behaviors like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. For a read-only tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in transparency.

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 with zero waste: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds critical behavioral context (update frequency). It's front-loaded with essential information and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers purpose and data freshness but lacks details on response structure, error cases, or usage trade-offs with siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral and contextual information would improve completeness for effective agent use.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters with clear descriptions and an enum for 'min_severity'. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as default values or interaction rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Get current flood warnings and alerts') and resource ('flood warnings and alerts'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_flood_area' or 'get_measure_readings' which target different resources. The addition of 'Updated every 15 minutes' further clarifies the data's freshness, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 current flood data, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_flood_warning' (singular) or geographic filtering tools. It lacks statements about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with siblings, leaving usage context partially inferred rather than clearly defined.

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