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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, the description discloses a non-obvious fail-closed data policy: 'absent means no source reported, never a guess' and notes that data is dated. This materially changes how an agent should interpret missing fields and prevents fabrication. It also names the data sources (operator, skier reports, avalanche bulletin), which is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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?

A single sentence organizes the key idea up front and then expands into three datum types, with the important fail-closed caveat tucked into a parenthetical. Every phrase contributes meaning and no words are wasted.

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 read-only, one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the result contains (lift/piste counts, skier thumbs, avalanche bulletin), freshness semantics, and absence behavior. Minor gaps remain around exact return formatting and how the avalanche bulletin is localized, but nothing blocks a correct call.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single 'resort' parameter. The phrase 'for one resort' clarifies that the parameter selects a single known resort, but the description does not specify accepted value format or whether it expects a name, slug, or ID. Given there is only one parameter and its schema title is 'Resort', this is minimally adequate but not enriched.

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 opening phrase 'Live mountain truth for one resort' names the resource and scope, and the colon list enumerates concrete content types: lifts/pistes counts, skier thumb reports, and avalanche bulletin. It is clear even without a verb, and the content list implicitly distinguishes it from forecast-oriented siblings like snow_forecast and daily_snow, though it never names an alternative.

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 establishes implied usage: call this for current, single-resort operating status and avalanche information. It does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling such as snow_forecast, webcams, or daily_snow, nor does it give exclusion criteria. The signal is adequate but leaves routing decisions to inference.

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