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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds useful framing ('public' data, informational-only, provenance included) but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or what happens with an unknown slug.

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?

Two tight sentences with the resource and payload front-loaded and no filler. The format restatement is mildly redundant with the schema, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 usefully enumerates what comes back (summit weather, provenance, timestamps), covering the return-value gap. It is nearly complete for a simple two-parameter read tool, missing only the sibling routing 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 100%, and the schema already documents slug provenance and the json/markdown format with a default. The description's mention of 'JSON or markdown' simply restates the schema, adding no new syntax or constraint details. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (returns conditions for a covered objective) and enumerates the payload: summit weather, source provenance, timestamps. This distinguishes it reasonably from search_objectives, but it does not explicitly contrast with get_route_conditions, the closest sibling.

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?

'Informational only' signals this is a read for reference rather than an action, and the required slug ties it to lookup flow. However, it never states when to choose this over get_route_conditions or get_forecast_accuracy, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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