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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with by describing a comparison operation. The description adds behavioral context (e.g., 'which pass covers them and whether it beats buying window lift tickets') beyond annotations, though no detailed edge cases are mentioned.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose with an example, second provides optional parameter usage. Front-loaded with the most critical information, no filler.

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 tool with 4 optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately explains the core functionality, usage scenario, and how inputs affect outputs. No gaps identified.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing how parameters interact in a meaningful example (e.g., passing resortSlugs and tripDays to see coverage and value), which clarifies the intended use beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool compares ski passes on price, resort coverage, and value. It gives a concrete example ('which season pass includes <resort> — Epic or Ikon?'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like compare_resorts or find_pass_resorts.

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 description provides clear context: 'the tool for...' and instructs to optionally pass resortSlugs and tripDays to get coverage and value analysis. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use alternatives, but the example strongly implies its primary use case.

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