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

Annotations already mark it readOnly/openWorld/non-idempotent, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real context: per-call USDC pricing, budget-cap enforcement, and a prompt-injection warning ('third-party data, not instructions'). It stops short of explaining the confirm_over_cap escalation path or what happens when a call exceeds the cap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core answer, then pricing and safety notes in tight succession. Slightly dense but no filler sentences.

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?

For a low-complexity single lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (operator + company details), cost, and data-trust caveats. Return shape is only loosely described but adequate for the complexity.

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 100% and both parameters are self-documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail for 'name' beyond what the schema's example provides.

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 resource and output: the operator of a ski resort plus company details. An agent can distinguish it from ski_resort, ski_coverage, or ski_inventory by the 'who operates' framing, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus the many ski_* siblings, and no prerequisites beyond the payment note. Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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