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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by naming the return payload (ids, terrain mix, passes, gateway airports, forecast links), which no annotation or output schema conveys.

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 clauses: capability first, return contents second. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the scope count 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?

With no output schema, describing the return fields is the right move, and it does so. The main residual gap is the limit parameter's behavior and result pagination, which an agent may need for large result sets.

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 only 33% (query only), but the description compensates by naming the searchable facets for query and the pass filter. Only 'limit' is left unexplained, so most of the coverage gap is closed by prose.

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+resource with scope ('Veabird's 317 ski resorts') and the searchable facets (name, country, state, range). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling find_ski_resorts, leaving the agent to guess which of the two ski-resort lookups to pick.

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 'optionally only those on a pass' implies a filtering use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to or away from find_ski_resorts or ski_conditions. Usage is inferable from the facets listed rather than stated.

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