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

Annotations only declare that this is not read-only, is open-world, and not idempotent. The description adds what actually matters and is not in the structured data: per-call USDC billing from a configured wallet, budget caps enforced, the confirm_over_cap escape hatch, and a prompt-injection warning that results are third-party data rather than instructions.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the profile contains before moving to price, payment mechanics, data trust, and the free alternative. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the payment/trust sentences run together without separators.

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, the description compensates by naming the fields returned (lifts, runs, altitude, season, links) and covers cost, wallet charging, budget interaction, and data-trust concerns. It omits failure behavior for unknown resorts, which is a minor gap for a paid single-record lookup.

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 already documents resort, country, and confirm_over_cap, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning to the confirm_over_cap parameter by explaining the payment/budget-cap context in which it matters ("only within the budget caps"), which the schema's own text presumes but does not fully motivate.

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 names the resource and enumerates exactly what the profile contains (lifts, runs, altitude, season, links), which cleanly separates it from ski_prices, ski_inventory, and ski_operator. It stops short of an explicit verb like "returns a profile," but the payload is unambiguous.

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?

It states the cost ($0.01/call), that the call is charged in USDC within budget caps, and — most usefully — routes the agent to free_sample first to see a free real answer of this product. It gives no explicit exclusions against sibling tools like ski_quote or ski_trip_bundle, so it falls short of a 5.

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