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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds that the tool returns names and SnowSure slugs, which is useful output context. With strong annotations, the description need not repeat safety info, and it adds value beyond the 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 description is only two sentences, yet it conveys the main purpose, example questions, output details, and chaining hint. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff. The structure is front-loaded with the core action.

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 only 2 parameters, no enums, and an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers everything: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and how to chain it. It is fully informative without being verbose.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters having descriptions. The description adds semantics by explaining that the passId is like 'ikon-pass' and that region is an optional filter that matches the pass's region labels. This provides context beyond the schema's basic descriptions, such as example values and usage patterns.

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 uses specific verbs ('List', 'answers') and clearly identifies the resource ('resorts on a ski pass'). It provides example questions that agents might ask, making the purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pass (which gives pass details) and compare_passes (which compares passes) by focusing on listing resorts on a single pass.

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 explicit use cases ('is <resort> on the Ikon Pass?' and 'what resorts does the Epic Pass include') which tells the agent when to invoke this tool. It also hints at chaining by noting that it returns SnowSure slugs that can be passed to get_resort. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare with siblings, which would push it to 5.

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