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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the confirmation email flow: nothing is created until the link is opened, and a wrong or unwanted address leads to no watch, no account, and no record. This adds important side-effect and consent details that annotations do not convey.

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 longer than minimal but every sentence serves a purpose: the first sentence states the core action, the second covers consent and confirmation, and the last explains the parameter and the sibling alternative. There is slight redundancy around 'nothing created' and 'no record', but it reinforces an important privacy behavior without being wasteful.

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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, and mutation side effects, the description covers the main operational concerns: what the tool does, how to obtain the email, the confirmation behavior, the cm threshold, and the alternative tool. It does not describe the immediate return value or failure behavior, but those are secondary given the detailed consent and side-effect guidance.

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. It explains `cm` with range and default semantics (5-100, house bar 20 cm) and clarifies that `email` must come from the user with consent. `resort` is implied as the mountain being discussed, though not formally spelled out, which is a minor gap.

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 states a specific action ('Set a standing powder alert up') for a specific resource (the person being talked to, using their email, for a mountain), with a clear outcome: emailing them when that mountain is forecast a real dump. It also distinguishes itself from sibling watch_resort by contrasting the address-based flow with a link-based flow.

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 to ask the person for their email address in their own words and only pass it if they consent to being emailed. It also names the exact alternative, watch_resort, and gives the condition for using it instead: when you would rather hand a link than ask for an address.

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