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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false); the description adds the cost ($0.05/call), the payment mechanism (USDC from the configured wallet), the budget enforcement, and the prompt-injection warning that results are third-party data, not instructions. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the payment and safety caveats in short sentences. Slightly dense with transactional boilerplate, but each sentence carries distinct 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description says what comes back (the operator plus company details) and fully covers the payment, budget, and trust caveats. Nothing an agent needs to call this paid, non-idempotent tool correctly is missing.

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 both parameters (name, confirm_over_cap) are already fully documented in the schema, including the example value. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource: 'Who operates a ski resort, with company details (product ski.operator)'. It is clearly distinct from nearby siblings like ski_resort and ski_coverage, though it does not name them explicitly to draw the contrast.

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?

Gives a clear pre-purchase path by pointing at free_sample as a free way to see a real answer before paying, plus the budget-cap constraint. It does not, however, say when to prefer this tool over ski_resort or the other ski_* siblings, so the routing guidance is partial.

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