get_weather_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. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns current warnings from DWD (data source), includes specific data fields (type, severity, description, validity period), and supports location-specific or nationwide queries. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or whether the data is real-time/cached.

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 perfectly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains what's returned, and the third clarifies parameter usage. Every sentence adds value with zero redundant information. The German text is efficiently structured.

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 (weather alerts retrieval), no annotations, 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, but WITH an output schema (so return values don't need description), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, return data, and parameter semantics adequately. The main gap is lack of behavioral details like rate limits or authentication, but the output schema handles return structure.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (parameter 'location' has no description in schema), the description compensates well by explaining the parameter's purpose: 'Kann für einen bestimmten Ort oder deutschlandweit abgefragt werden' (can be queried for a specific location or nationwide). This clarifies that the location parameter is optional (null = nationwide) and what it controls. Since there's only 1 parameter, this is sufficient.

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 tool's purpose: 'Amtliche Wetterwarnungen abrufen' (retrieve official weather warnings) and specifies it returns current warnings from DWD including type, severity, description, and validity period. It distinguishes from siblings like get_current_weather (current conditions) and get_weather_forecast (future predictions) by focusing specifically on alerts/warnings.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: for retrieving weather warnings, either for a specific location or nationwide. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the siblings (e.g., use get_current_weather for current conditions instead of warnings).

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