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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail: the REQUIRED card parameter changes the response format entirely, with card=full returning markdown text only and no card. It does not describe error behavior when neither slug nor resort is supplied, but with annotations and an output schema present this is acceptable.

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 most important content is front-loaded, but it is a single run-on paragraph mixing enum semantics, intent routing, and sibling preference. The card semantics partly duplicate the schema's enum description rather than structuring them for scanning. Bullets would improve clarity without losing 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still summarizes what each card returns, which helps the agent choose. It covers the required-card contract and alternatives. It omits in prose the constraint that slug or resort must be supplied, which lives only in the schema.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning beyond the schema: it enumerates what each card enum value returns (elevation, lifts, season dates; gallery carousel; score, base depth, forecast with base/mid/summit forecasts and the height each was made at). It also reinforces that card is required. The slug/resort aliasing is left to the schema.

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 and resource (single-resort data) and explicitly maps each card enum value to a distinct output/UI card. The mapping makes the tool's varied behavior clear, though the name get_resort suggests a generic resort resource while the actual purpose is a UI-card dispatcher.

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 explicit routing for natural-language intents: "Resort guide" → card=guide, "Photos/gallery" → card=photos, "Conditions/forecast" / "is it open right now, base depth, lifts open of total" → card=snow. It also names preferred alternatives: "Prefer get_resort_info / get_resort_photos when available (same cards)." That is explicit when-to-use and when-to-prefer-siblings guidance.

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