nws_alerts_active

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

Annotations already communicate the safe, read-only nature of the tool. The description adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations: with no geographic filter, all active U.S. alerts are returned and the result is capped by `limit`. It doesn't describe output shape or error behavior, but the additional context is valuable and non-contradictory.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences cover the purpose, filter constraints, and the all-alerts caveat. Every sentence contributes unique information and there is no fluff or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 read-only list tool, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly, including the expensive unfiltered query case. Missing details like the response shape and the precise default behavior for status/message_type are minor because the annotations cover safety and the core purpose is more fully stated.

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 50%, and the description partially compensates by adding the crucial 'at most one of area/zone/point' constraint and explaining the optional severity/urgency relationship. However, it doesn't explain status or message_type, two parameters with enums but no descriptions, so the semantic guidance remains incomplete.

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 and resource: 'Get currently-active NWS weather alerts' with examples and three geographic filter modes. It is clear that this tool is about active alerts only, distinguishing it from sibling tools like nws_alert and nws_alert_types.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: pass at most one of area/zone/point, severity and urgency are optional, and omitting a geographic filter returns all active U.S. alerts. It falls short of a 5 because it doesn't explicitly tell the agent when to choose this tool over an alternative like nws_alert or nws_forecast.

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