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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context: model behavior by forecast horizon, per-day and per-window outputs, dominant risk, and the explicit instruction to phrase results as likelihood. This goes well beyond the structured 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 dense and front-loaded: purpose and key contrast come first, followed by output semantics and operational details. It is slightly run-on but every sentence contributes useful information, with no filler.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description appropriately defines the key returned values: p80, p_any, dominant risk, and expected_open_days. It also covers date constraints, forecast horizons, and communication style. The main missing piece is how to specify the resort, though sibling tools like find_resorts may fill that gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does explain start/end format, defaults, and max window. However, the required resort parameter is only referred to as 'one resort' without saying what value it expects (name, slug, or ID), which is a meaningful gap for a required parameter.

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 computes the chance that lifts run, per day, for one resort over a date window, and explicitly frames it as a forecast, not a report. It also distinguishes itself from conditions by naming what that sibling does. The resource, action, and scope are all unambiguous.

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 explicitly says to use conditions when the human needs verified current status, which is direct alternative routing. It also gives practical boundaries: default 10 days, max 61 days, date format, and instructions to phrase outputs as likelihood rather than fact. This is strong when-to-use guidance.

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