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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds contextual behavioral traits: it returns a UI card, focuses on single-resort stats, and is explicitly non-weather. No contradictions exist between the description and annotations.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and uses structured lists and examples. Every sentence earns its place; despite length, there is no redundancy, and the formatting (caps, examples, exclusions) improves scannability.

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?

Considering the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, when not to use it, and how it relates to siblings. The output schema handles return-value details.

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% with a clear description and examples for the single 'slug' parameter. The description does not add further parameter-level detail, but the schema already sufficiently documents it, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('INTERACTIVE RESORT GUIDE CARD') and immediately enumerates the content areas (elevation, lifts, runs, etc.). It also explicitly differentiates itself from sibling tools by stating 'Do NOT use get_resort' and 'use compare_resorts' for comparisons.

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 'REQUIRED when' trigger phrases, concrete example queries, and clear alternatives/exclusions. This gives the agent unambiguous directives for when to select this tool and when to select a sibling.

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