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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is lower; the description still adds the 'FREE' cost note and the 50-per-page pagination limit, which are not in any structured field. Return shape per mode is also given. It stops short of ordering or rate-limit details.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with cost and scope, zero filler. Every sentence conveys distinct, actionable information.

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?

With no output schema and no param descriptions, the description compensates by describing both return modes and pagination. Adequate for an agent to call correctly, though result field shapes remain unspecified.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains that query accepts an area, resort, or country, and that page controls 50-item pages – meaningful semantics beyond the bare integer/string types.

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?

States a specific scope: 'Ski areas with restaurants and menus on file' is a concrete resource, and the two-mode behavior is spelled out. It is distinguishable from siblings like restaurant_menu and ski_coverage, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

Explicitly describes the two call modes: no query returns countries and area counts, a query returns matching areas. The conditional context is clear, though it never contrasts itself with the menu or ski-coverage siblings an agent might otherwise pick.

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