env_flood_warnings

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds behavioral context by explaining the meaning of 'Keine Warnung' as an explicit all-clear, not an error. However, it doesn't detail other behaviors like response format, which is in the schema.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, danger levels, use case, important notes, args, returns). It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While slightly verbose, every sentence adds value for the agent.

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 simple query tool with two filter parameters, the description covers the key aspects: what it retrieves, how to filter, and interpretation of results. It notes the output is a string of active warnings, which is adequate given no output schema is required.

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's Args section reiterates parameter details (min_level and canton) that are already well-described in the input schema. Since schema coverage is high, the description adds minimal new semantic value beyond restating the defaults and valid ranges.

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 retrieves current flood warnings from all BAFU measuring stations in Switzerland, using specific verbs ('abrufen') and resource ('Hochwasserwarnungen'). It explains the 5 danger levels, making the tool easily distinguishable from sibling environmental tools.

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 provides guidance for using the tool in nationwide or cantonal situation assessments. While it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, the context is clear. The <important_notes> clarifies that 'Keine Warnung' is an explicit all-clear, aiding correct interpretation.

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