meteo_warnings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds behavioral details: live backend, no nationwide endpoint, aggregation logic, warning scale, and environment variable override. Provides substantial context beyond annotations.

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?

Well-structured with <use_case>, <important_notes>, <example>, Args, Returns. Front-loaded with purpose. Slightly lengthy but each section earns its place. Could trim some notes.

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?

Covers usage, parameters, behavior, examples, and environment variable. Output schema exists for ResponseFormat. Complete for a live-data aggregation tool with multiple filtering options.

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 has descriptions for each parameter, but the description reinforces meaning: plz for precise location, canton for filtering, language, response_format. Adds value beyond schema (e.g., 'Präziser als canton'). Coverage signal 0% may be inaccurate, but description compensates.

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 it retrieves active official MeteoSwiss weather warnings live, and distinguishes from sibling tools (meteo_stations, meteo_current, etc.) which focus on other weather data.

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 <use_case> section explains when to use it (live warnings, nationwide, per canton, or per PLZ). Examples show different parameter combos. Sibling tool names imply alternatives, but no explicit when-not-to-use.

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