get_weather_alerts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves weather alerts but doesn't describe what the alerts include (e.g., severity, types, timestamps), how they are formatted, whether there are rate limits, or if authentication is required. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and constraints.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details in a labeled 'Args' section. Both sentences are necessary and add value. It could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter info more seamlessly, but it's efficiently presented without wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks details on output format, error handling, or behavioral traits. Without annotations or an output schema, users won't know what the alerts look like or how to interpret results.

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 adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'state', specifying it as a 'Two-letter US state code (e.g., CA, NY)'. This clarifies the expected format beyond the schema's basic 'string' type, which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't address edge cases (e.g., invalid codes) or provide examples beyond CA and NY.

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's purpose: 'Get weather alerts for a US state.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('weather alerts'), and geographic scope ('US state'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_forecast' (which might provide general weather data rather than alerts).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools (e.g., 'get_forecast' for non-alert weather data) or specify contexts where weather alerts are preferred over other weather-related information. The user must infer usage based on the tool name and description alone.

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