suzi_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, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the 7-day scan window, the four alert categories emitted, that each alert carries a level and a suggested action, and a candid reliability caveat that thresholds are uncalibrated inferred values. It omits any auth, rate-limit, or failure-mode context, keeping it below 5.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the scan window and output, followed by a short caveat sentence. No filler, though the caveat could be tidier.

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 single-optional-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers what is produced (categorized alerts with levels and actions) and flags data reliability. Only the lack of relational guidance versus suzi_weather keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (region) whose schema description is fully covered, including its 泸州 default, so the schema already does the work. The description adds nothing about region semantics; baseline 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?

States a specific verb (扫描) and resource (未来7天气象) and specifies the output artifact (农事预警事件 with 等级与建议动作), which implicitly separates it from the sibling suzi_weather's raw forecast. It does not explicitly name the sibling or contrast the two, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for agricultural warning checks over the next week, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no reference to suzi_weather as the plain-forecast alternative.

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