san_antonio_nws_alerts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: defaulting to central San Antonio when no address is supplied, the authoritative source (api.weather.gov), and the specific return fields. This goes beyond the annotation-only safety profile.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then adding default behavior, return fields, and source. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 read-only tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the alert types, default if no address, the exact fields returned, and the authoritative source. No critical information is missing 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 has 100% parameter description coverage, including address default behavior. The description does not meaningfully add parameter semantics; it references the default location but that is already in the schema. No additional parameter constraints or usage details are provided.

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 provides active National Weather Service alerts for a San Antonio location, listing specific alert types. It distinguishes from siblings (schools, 311) by focusing on weather alerts and includes the specific scope, return fields, and source.

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 implies when to use the tool: for NWS alerts in San Antonio, with a default location if no address is given. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are clearly unrelated (schools, 311), so usage context is unambiguous.

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