get_weather_alerts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the source (Environment Canada), that results are real-time, and the response format with a 'status' field. It omits any auth/rate-limit context and does not clarify whether all params are optional filters (which the schema makes optional but is easy to misread).

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then cleanly organized into Args and Returns blocks. Slightly verbose in the province enumeration, but every element is informative and 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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value prose is partly redundant, but the parameter documentation is complete and the read-only nature is clear. Only minor gaps (no auth/limits, no explicit sibling differentiation) remain.

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 fully, and it does: it enumerates the valid province codes, lists the accepted alert_type values, explains search_query matches against location names or descriptions with examples, and documents the language default. This is exactly the meaning the bare schema lacks.

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 ('Fetches') and resource ('real-time weather alerts') with the data source ('Environment Canada'), so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_alert_summary or get_alerts_near_coordinates, leaving the agent to infer the difference from names alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling tool is named as an alternative. The filter parameters imply a 'use this to search alerts by region/keyword' scenario, but the agent must infer it.

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