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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld. The description adds useful context beyond them: the operation is free, and it describes the shape of the response (steps with on-file data, prices, tripId). It doesn't discuss pagination or failure modes for bad resort ids.

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 'FREE' and delivered in essentially one dense sentence with no filler. The parenthetical step list is slightly verbose but earns its place by previewing the return structure.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back and how the result feeds downstream tools. Only minor gaps remain around error handling for unknown resorts and the role of the country param.

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 all three params are already documented in the schema (including the trip param's 'see which steps are bought'). The description only reinforces resort-scoping ('for one resort') and the tripId usage, adding little beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('Ski trip map for one resort') and enumerates the content returned (steps, price, tripId), so an agent knows this is an overview/map lookup. It differentiates itself by naming the consumer tools ski_trip_step and ski_trip_bundle, though it doesn't contrast with ski_resort or ski_coverage.

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 mention of a tripId 'to pass to ski_trip_step and ski_trip_bundle' implies this is the entry point before those tools, and 'FREE' hints at cost tradeoffs. However there is no explicit when-to-use versus ski_resort/ski_coverage/ski_prices, so usage is only implied.

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