Full 10-day forecast for one resort (slug from find_resorts), per elevation band (base/mid/summit/glacier): daily snow cm with ensemble p25-p75, temps, freezing level, 48h hourly detail, storm context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resort | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by outlining exactly what the forecast includes: per-elevation-band snow, ensemble range, temperatures, freezing level, 48h hourly details, and storm context, which goes beyond simple read-only status.
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 a single dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then lists the forecast components in a compact, scannable way.
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?
With no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the major return components. It could be slightly more explicit about overall response shape, but for a read-only forecast tool with one parameter, the provided detail is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret 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?
The schema only provides the parameter name 'resort' with no description. The description compensates by explaining that the value is a slug from find_resorts, giving the agent a clear source and format for the 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 that this tool provides a full 10-day forecast for a single resort, with explicit details like elevation bands, daily snow in cm, ensemble range, temperatures, freezing level, hourly detail, and storm context. This differentiates it from siblings such as conditions and daily_snow by specifying the forecast horizon and data granularity.
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 tells the agent to use a slug from find_resorts, which is important usage guidance. It implies this is for one resort's detailed forecast, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or conditions under which to prefer them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct domain aspect: planning, booking, snow conditions, resort info, and costs. Even closely related tools like booking_options vs open_booking vs choose_path are clearly separated by their roles in the trip lifecycle. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Names mostly use a noun or verb_noun style in lowercase, but there is a mix of forms (e.g., 'find_resorts' vs 'conditions' vs 'where_to_ski'). The pattern is still predictable and readable, with only minor stylistic deviations.
16 tools is slightly above the ideal sweet spot, but the domain is broad (ski trip planning, conditions, booking, media, costs) and each tool clearly earns its place. It feels well-scoped without being bloated.
Covers the full trip lifecycle: research (plan_trip, trip_status, tell_skym), selection (choose_path), booking (booking_options, open_booking), live conditions (conditions, daily_snow, snow_forecast, webcams, where_to_ski), resort details (find_resorts, resort_media, getting_there), and costs (trip_costs). No obvious dead ends or missing operations.