get_alert_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says almost nothing beyond the return shape — no auth/permission needs, no rate limits, no definition of what 'active' means or how current the data is. The return-shape sentence largely duplicates the existing output schema.

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 short, front-loaded with the purpose sentence, and uses clear Args/Returns structure with no filler. The Returns block partly restates the output schema, which is mild redundancy.

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-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema already defining the return value, the definition covers the essentials: what it returns and how to scope by province. The main gap is the absence of any when-to-use guidance relative to three sibling alert tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that 'province' is an optional two-letter province code and gives a concrete example ('ON'). That is meaningful format guidance the schema lacks, though it does not specify behavior for invalid codes.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Gets an executive breakdown summary of active Canadian weather alerts') and the word 'summary' implicitly contrasts with the sibling get_alert_details. However, it never explicitly names or differentiates itself from get_weather_alerts or get_alerts_near_coordinates, 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the aggregate/overview tool versus the per-alert detail sibling, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' or exclusion statement. No prerequisites or freshness caveats are given.

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