Get weather alerts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the language of alert text (Norwegian) and the behavior when coordinates are omitted. It does not disclose response format, potential rate limits, or whether results are paginated. Since some key behaviors are missing, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Three concise sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by scope and a critical usage hint. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers the essential: what it returns (alerts), source (MET Norway), geography, language, and how to query all vs. filtered. It lacks explicit differentiation from alternatives and response format details, but these are less critical for a simple list tool. I rate 4.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context: 'Omit coordinates to get all current alerts' explains the optionality and effect of omitting parameters, which enriches the parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Official danger warnings (wind, flood, ice, forest fire...) from MET Norway.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_forecast and get_nowcast by focusing on native weather alerts rather than forecasts. The geographic scope is explicit.

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 clear usage context: covers Norway and its waters, and instructive guidance to omit coordinates to get all alerts. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so exclusions are absent. Thus 4 for clear context without explicit alternatives.

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