houston_nws_alerts

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the return fields (severity, urgency, headline, description, expiration time) and the default-central-Houston behavior. No contradictions with annotations; no hidden destructive or stateful behavior is implied.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds specific value: alert types, default location, return fields, and authoritative source. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With three optional parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when the default applies. It could mention edge cases like lat/lng outside Houston or geocoding failures, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the default behavior already stated in the schema ('If omitted, defaults to central Houston') but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 active National Weather Service alerts for a specific Houston location, listing alert types and the return data fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'about' and 'houston_tea_schools'.

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 description provides clear context: it is for a specific Houston location, defaults to central Houston when no address is supplied, and relies on the National Weather Service as the authoritative source. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but none appear necessary given the sibling tools.

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