APIbase

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It compensates partially by listing return fields (event, severity, urgency, etc.) and citing the data source (NWS/NOAA), but omits operational details like whether the operation is read-only, rate limits, or caching behavior.

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?

Highly efficient two-clause structure front-loaded with the core purpose. Every element serves a function: the em-dash clarifies alert scope, and the parenthetical identifies the data source and return payload 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?

Appropriately complete for a simple 2-parameter read tool. The description effectively compensates for the missing output schema by enumerating the returned fields (event, severity, timing, etc.), though it could explicitly confirm this is a safe, non-destructive query operation.

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% (state codes and limit constraints are fully documented). The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation for well-documented schemas.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves 'Active weather alerts for a specific US state' and enumerates the alert types (warnings, watches, advisories). The phrase 'specific US state' implicitly distinguishes it from broader tools like weather.alerts.active, though explicit sibling differentiation is absent.

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 scope 'for a specific US state' implies when to use the tool (state-level queries), but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer alternatives like weather.alerts.active or weather.alerts.get. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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