env_avalanche_bulletin

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

Describes behavior beyond annotations: seasonality, explicit 'no active bulletin' message, data source SLF with CC BY 4.0, and EAWS scale. Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive, and description aligns.

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 main description, use_case, important_notes, and Args. Every sentence is informative; no fluff. Front-loaded with core purpose.

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 low complexity (1 param, output schema exists), the description covers all key aspects: purpose, usage, behavior, parameter info, and references to license. It is complete enough for correct invocation.

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% per context, but the description provides an Args section explaining both parameters: language options and region as substring filter. This adds value, though it does not elaborate further beyond the schema's own 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 it retrieves the current avalanche bulletin from SLF with warning levels per region. It specifies the EAWS scale 1-5 and distinguishes from sibling tool env_snow_current for snow depths.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: for tour planning/safety assessment. Notes that outside winter season the tool returns 'no active bulletin' (not an error). Recommends env_snow_current for snow height data.

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