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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: the result is a citable text document covering routes, season, access, hazards, huts, notices, and provenance, and it is not an external web fetch.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core action, then adds a concrete example, scope clarification, content summary, and sibling routing. Each sentence contributes useful information with no wasted framing.

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 one required parameter, full schema coverage, annotations covering safety semantics, and an output schema present, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It clarifies the document scope and points weather queries elsewhere.

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 100% and the schema already documents the id as a peak slug from search. The description adds an explicit example input, reinforcing slug usage beyond the schema's pattern and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: read a peak search result by catalogue slug as a citable text document. It also distinguishes the tool from external URL fetching and from weather lookup, so an agent can identify its role without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context by saying this retrieves catalogue documents rather than publisher pages, and explicitly routes weather queries to get_weather. It does not compare against other sibling retrieval tools such as get_peak, but the intended usage is otherwise clear.

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