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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that data comes from 'precomputed Convex snapshots,' hinting at cached/stale data, which is useful, but it does not state freshness windows or confirm what is not returned.

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?

One dense sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded, followed by an inline enumeration of the metrics returned. No filler sentences and nothing redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned metrics (24h/7d/10d modeled, season total, % normal, vs last year) and naming the data source. Missing only freshness/staleness specifics for a snapshot-backed tool.

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 single 'resort' parameter is documented with an example ('vail'), so the schema carries the load. The description's 'by slug' restates rather than extends the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('snowfall and season comparison for one resort by slug') and scopes it to a single resort, which implicitly separates it from the region/state siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so an agent still infers the granularity distinction.

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 phrase 'for one resort by slug' implies the usage context (single-resort lookup) and contrasts with the region/state siblings in the list, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative to route to.

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