get_weather_alerts

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains the tool's behavioral traits: it scrapes the PAGASA homepage, cannot isolate active warnings from chrome text, returns an empty array with a caveat when ambiguous, and returns an explicit signal for no active warnings. This is transparent about limitations.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then explains necessary caveats. While somewhat lengthy, it avoids redundancy and each sentence adds value given the tool's complexity.

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 scraping nature and the limitations, the description covers key aspects: what it returns, the warning states, and an alternative for real-time data. The output schema exists but its content isn't visible; nevertheless, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 has 100% coverage for the single 'region' parameter, including a description and default. The tool description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool retrieves active PAGASA weather alerts and advisories, establishing a specific verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_active_typhoons or get_weather_forecast, the focus on PAGASA alerts distinguishes it sufficiently.

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 usage context, including a limitation about detecting active warnings and a suggestion to visit the PAGASA website directly for real-time advisories. This helps an agent decide when to use this tool and when to seek alternatives.

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