get_weather_alerts

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it explains that the tool cannot isolate active warnings from chrome text, leading to ambiguous returns, and that it reliably detects 'No Active Warnings' state. This level of honesty is rare and valuable.

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 purpose and then explains technical caveats. While informative, it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity. Every sentence adds value, but some restructuring could improve readability.

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 single optional parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers all necessary context: how the tool behaves in different scenarios, its limitations, and an alternative for real-time data. No gaps identified.

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 examples ('NCR', 'Region VII') and confirms 'None returns all', but this is already implied by the schema's default null and description. No significant extra 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 clearly states 'Get active PAGASA weather alerts and advisories.' It specifies the source (PAGASA) and distinguishes from siblings like get_active_typhoons and get_weather_forecast by explaining the tool's limitations and return states.

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?

Explicit guidance provided: 'For real-time advisories, call bagong.pagasa.dost.gov.ph directly.' It also explains when the tool returns [] with caveat (ambiguous state) vs [] with explicit no warnings signal. This tells the agent when to use and when not to use.

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