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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: the data is sourced from OpenStreetMap mappers, is static (never live), and is limited to built infrastructure. It also clarifies the tool does not report current conditions, which is a meaningful behavioral boundary beyond the 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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core definition, then adds the key distinction from `conditions` in a separate sentence. Every sentence earns its place, and the formatting with line breaks improves readability.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what data is returned, the data source, and the key limitation (static, not live). The only minor gap is not specifying the expected format of the `resort` parameter, but this is a small omission given the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description does not explicitly explain the `resort` parameter, but it implies the tool takes a resort name and returns facts about that mountain. Since there is only one parameter and the tool's purpose is clear, an agent can infer the parameter's meaning. However, it would be stronger if it explicitly stated the expected format (e.g., resort name as used in OpenStreetMap).

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 the tool's purpose: it reports static mountain facts (lift counts by type, piste kilometres by difficulty, vertical drop, nursery lifts) as tagged in OpenStreetMap. It explicitly contrasts itself with `conditions`, which reports live operator-verified data, making it easy for an agent to distinguish between the two.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool vs. alternatives: use it for 'what is BUILT there' and use `conditions` for 'what is open today'. It also notes that `conditions` fails closed when no operator has reported, which helps an agent choose correctly.

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