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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read nature is disclosed. The description adds context about public resorts, the France scope, the optional filter, and the domain definition of a ski resort. It does not add details like pagination or response format, but with annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action ('List public ski resorts'), and the second sentence adds necessary domain context without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and full schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context: scope, filter, and domain definition. Annotations handle the safety profile, and the absence of an output schema does not require return-value explanation. The description is complete for this tool's complexity.

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, skiAreaId, is described as 'Optional ski area id from list_ski_areas.' The description also mentions 'optionally filtered by ski area id,' which aligns with the schema. The description adds no significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 clearly states 'List public ski resorts in France for destination discovery, optionally filtered by ski area id.' It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (ski resorts), and the scope (France) plus filter distinguish it from siblings like list_ski_areas and get_ski_resort_detail.

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 provides usage context: it is for 'destination discovery' and clarifies that a ski resort is the local destination used for accommodation search scopes and resort detail pages. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as using get_ski_resort_detail for a single resort.

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