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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return content: compact snow metrics and a citation URL to the public site, which is useful given there is no output schema.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero waste: the searchable fields come first, then the return summary. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple read-only search with no output schema, the description covers what can be searched and what comes back, which is enough to call it correctly. It could go further on result limits or ranking, but nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including examples for state and region. The description largely restates those fields and adds no format or syntax detail beyond them, making the baseline 3 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 (search) and resource (resorts) plus the fields usable for matching, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like `search`, `list_regions`, or the various `get_*_snow` tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 is implied by the searchable fields (name, slug, region, state code), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or reference to alternatives such as `list_regions` for browsing or `get_resort_snow` for a known resort. An agent must infer when this beats a sibling.

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