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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the data sources (CDOT/WSDOT/UDOT/Compass), explains the measured-vs-modeled distinction, and discloses the 'no road weather' edge case outside the covered area.

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 efficient: it front-loads the core purpose, enumerates data types, names data providers, and ends with the edge case and the key distinction from get_operating_risk. Every sentence contributes value, though it is slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essential context: what the data is, where it comes from, which regions are covered, and how it differs from the modeled alternative. No critical missing information for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%; the only parameter 'slug' is already documented as 'Resort slug'. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond referring to 'a resort', 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 as returning measured roadside weather (RWIS) for highways near a resort, listing specific data types. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the modeled get_operating_risk, so an agent can differentiate between the two without opening schemas.

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 gives a clear usage context: use for measured, sensor-based road conditions as opposed to modeled risk (get_operating_risk). It also notes coverage areas and the 'no road weather' fallback outside covered areas, implicitly telling the agent when not to expect data. It does not explicitly mention sibling tools like get_road_access or get_road_cameras, leaving some routing to inference.

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