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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context about the interactive UI nature and what each card produces, including the distinction that card=full returns markdown only. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides additional useful detail.

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 dense but well-organized, leading with the required card parameter and then breaking out each card type. It uses bullets and examples effectively. While slightly long, every sentence contributes value, and the structure makes scanning easy.

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?

Given the enum with four distinct modes and two alternative parameter names, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to use each card, what it returns, and how to route to sibling tools. The output schema handles return details, so no critical information is missing.

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 schema already describes all three parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics: it explains each enum value in context, provides natural-language triggers, and gives an example slug ('portillo'). This enriches understanding beyond the schema's terse 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's purpose: 'Single-resort data with a REQUIRED card parameter that picks the interactive UI.' It enumerates the specific card types and what each returns, and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_resort_info and get_resort_photos as preferred alternatives. This makes the tool's role 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?

Provides explicit mapping from natural language requests to the correct card parameter ('Resort guide' → card=guide, 'Photos/gallery' → card=photos, etc.) and details what each card outputs. It also states when NOT to use it by preferring sibling tools when available. No ambiguity remains about when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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