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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes one extra fact beyond them: the data comes from the resort board snapshot. It says nothing about result ordering, the limit cap, or how ties/regions are handled.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the ranking verb and the three windows are exactly the information needed to select the tool.

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 three-parameter, read-only leaderboard tool with annotations covering safety and an enum documenting the required window, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. Only the limit semantics (default 10, max 25) are left entirely to the schema, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists to explain the return shape.

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 67%: window and region already carry descriptions and window has an enum. The description restates the window values (24h, 7d, season-to-date inches) with slight added meaning but says nothing about the limit parameter or the region slug format. Baseline 3 for mostly schema-covered params 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?

Specific verb (rank) plus resource (resorts) and the three ranking windows, so the agent knows it produces a snowfall leaderboard. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling single-scope tools (get_resort_snow, get_region_snow, get_state_snow) by ranking across resorts, but never explicitly differentiates.

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 ranking framing implies when an agent would reach for this tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to, and no named alternative among the ten siblings that also return snow data. Guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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