sanalert_level

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the data-trust states (ok/delayed/no_data) and the rule that no_data is never quiet, plus the privacy guarantee that the place is never sent anywhere and the server only fetches public documents. These are the kind of semantics that change how an agent interprets results.

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 first clause is well front-loaded, but the description then runs as one very long sentence that enumerates return fields ('the website's sentence about it', 'what raised it', the RCB/RSO messages) which the output schema likely already provides. The privacy sentence earns its place; the field enumeration is padding.

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 lookup with a full schema, an output schema and covering annotations, the description supplies the remaining context an agent needs: input alternatives, data-staleness semantics and privacy. It is slightly over-complete on return fields but nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented (place as a town or omit for coordinates, language controlling level_name and say, lat/long bounds). The description restates the town-or-coordinates choice without adding format detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the specific resource (SanAlert's current level for one place in Poland) and the scope of the answer (quiet/activity/approaching/near). It is clear what the agent gets back, though the verb is implicit ('SanAlert's level right now') rather than stated as an action. With no sibling tools, no differentiation is needed.

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?

It tells the agent what to supply ('Give one of SanAlert's towns or the coordinates'), which is input guidance rather than when-to-use guidance. There are no alternative tools and no stated when-not-to-use conditions, so usage is only implied by the place/coordinates split.

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