get-alerts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and 'active' suggests temporal filtering, but the description does not disclose data source, return shape, or any limitations beyond the state scope.

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 a single focused sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Every word adds value, with no redundant details.

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 low-complexity tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient to let an agent call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around response format and whether 'active' has a time-bound meaning, but these are not blocking for basic 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?

The input schema fully describes the only parameter with a clear example ('Two-letter US state code, e.g. CA'), so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Given 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the active weather alerts for a US state'. It clearly identifies the tool's scope and differentiates it from vague or ambiguous actions.

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 the tool is for fetching active weather alerts within a US state, which is sufficient for this simple case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives, though no siblings are listed.

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