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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it covers only specific geographic areas, returns 'no road data' outside them, links to the official DOT map, and notes the resort's road status is authoritative. This adds useful operational context.

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 front-loads the core purpose and then provides relevant sourcing and coverage details. It is somewhat dense, but each clause adds useful information, so it remains appropriately structured for a tool with multiple data providers.

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 single parameter, available annotations, and output schema, the description covers the necessary context: what the tool answers, which agencies and regions are included, coverage limits, and the authoritative fallback. It is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already fully describes the single required 'slug' parameter as a resort slug, and the description's <resort> placeholder reinforces that meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: providing driving access, chain-control, and road-open status for a resort. It distinguishes itself from sibling road tools by emphasizing chain control, mountain passes, and road-surface conditions, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_road_cameras or get_road_weather.

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?

It gives concrete use cases: answering whether chains are needed and whether the road is open. This provides clear context for when to invoke it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead.

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