env_flood_warnings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: the response is always nationwide, a set canton filter is reported as not applied, and 'Keine Warnung' is an explicit all-clear rather than an error. No contradiction with 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?

The description is structured with use_case, important_notes, Args, and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids excessive prose, though the level enumeration and Args section partially duplicate the input 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 query tool, the description covers the key context: nationwide scope, danger levels, canton no-op behavior, and the meaning of no warning. With an output schema present, not detailing return structure is acceptable. The only gap is the undocumented response_format option.

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?

The description explains min_level and canton semantics, including the default for min_level, but omits response_format entirely even though it is part of the input schema. Schema description coverage is 0% at the top level, so the description partially compensates but misses one parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Ruft aktuelle Hochwasserwarnungen aller BAFU-Messstationen in der Schweiz ab' (retrieves current flood warnings from all BAFU stations in Switzerland). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling environment tools like avalanche or wildfire 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 <use_case> tag states when to use: 'Aktive Hochwasserwarnungen schweizweit für eine Lagebeurteilung' (active flood warnings nationwide for situation assessment). It also clarifies that canton is not applied and that 'Keine Warnung' is an explicit all-clear, but it does not name alternative tools or exclusion cases.

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