get_active_warnings

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses the types of warnings, what data is returned (tags, storm motion, expiration, geometry, point-in-polygon check), and that watches are listed separately. However, it omits rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects (though likely read-only).

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 concise: three compact sentences that front-load the core purpose, then list details. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple warning types, return fields, geometry), no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is fairly complete. It covers what warnings are included, key return fields, and the point-in-polygon check. The output schema likely provides remaining details. Minor gap: no mention of radius_km bounds or CONUS-specific constraints.

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% (no parameter descriptions). The description adds context by mentioning 'CONUS point' for lat/lon and 'within radius_km' for radius_km, but does not specify units, valid ranges, or format. It compensates partially but not fully for the missing schema descriptions.

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 returns active NWS severe-weather warning polygons near a CONUS point, lists specific warning types (tornado, severe thunderstorm, flash flood), and details the returned data (tags, storm motion, expiration, geometry, point-in-polygon). This distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on active warnings vs other severe weather products.

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 obtaining active warnings near a location but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_mrms_severe or get_threat_brief. No exclusions or context-dependent advice is given.

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