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

Beyond the read-only annotation, it discloses critical data semantics: beds are capacity not vacancies, live availability/reservations/rental inventory/current opening status are unknown, and next year's dates must not be inferred. This meaningfully prevents misuse of the returned data.

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?

Four tightly written sentences, each carrying distinct value: scope, field contents, bed semantics, and explicit data limitations. No filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Annotations cover safety and idempotency, an output schema exists, and the description covers the most important caveats about data limitations. The remaining gap is parameter-level explanation, particularly hutId and how date interacts with the returned seasons.

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 description does not mention any parameter names or clarify the roles of slug, hutId, or date. Schema coverage is 67%, with hutId having no description at all, and the description does nothing to compensate for that gap beyond the vague phrase 'for a peak'.

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 huts' – scoped to a peak, and enumerates what is returned (documented seasonal operation, source years, booking/contact URLs). An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like get_peak, get_route, and get_weather 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?

Usage context is implied: planning huts for a peak. The description explicitly rules out treating the data as live availability or current opening status, but it does not name an alternative tool for live availability or reservations, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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