PAGASA weather alerts

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

The description discloses important behavioral quirks beyond the annotations: it cannot isolate active warnings from chrome text, and it returns [] with a caveat when state is ambiguous or with an explicit 'no active warnings' signal. This is valuable reliability context that annotations do not provide.

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 compact (about 70 words) yet information-dense. Each sentence adds value: purpose, reliability limitation, return behavior, and an alternative. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and well-structured with a caveat explanation.

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?

Despite having an output schema and strong annotations, the description provides crucial context about failure modes, ambiguity handling, and the alternative source, making it complete for real-world usage. It covers edge cases (ambiguous state) that structured fields do not.

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% — the region parameter is already explained with examples ('e.g. "NCR", "Region VII"...'). The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so baseline 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 first sentence, "Get active PAGASA weather alerts and advisories," uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_weather_forecast and get_active_typhoons. The scope (active alerts/advisories) is explicit and non-tautological.

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 explicitly states when the tool returns [] in ambiguous vs. no-active-warning states, and provides an alternative for real-time advisories: "For real-time advisories, call bagong.pagasa.dost.gov.ph directly." This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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