get_weather_warning

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the nature of the result (active advisories covering phenomena and effective time windows) and constrains the county value to the cwa://counties list. It does not disclose error behavior for invalid counties, empty-advisory states, or any access constraints.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the single critical parameter constraint. No filler or repetition of schema information.

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 single-parameter query tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, parameter format, and result content adequately. The notable gaps are the missing sibling-routing guidance and any treatment of no-advisory or invalid-county outcomes, which matter given the external cwa://counties constraint.

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 schema alone is useless for the county parameter. The description compensates with a precise constraint — the value must be a full county name from cwa://counties — and a concrete example (臺北市), which materially improves the odds of a correct call.

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 states a specific verb (查詢/query), a specific resource (currently active weather advisories), and a scope (specified county). The parenthetical enumeration of phenomena — heavy rain, strong winds, valid time period — helps distinguish it from the typhoon-warning and earthquake-report siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over get_weather_forecast, get_typhoon_warning, or get_earthquake_report. With three adjacent sibling tools, the absence of any routing, exclusion, or 'use X instead when...' note leaves selection to inference.

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