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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the fields returned (ids, terrain mix, passes, gateway airports, forecast links), but says nothing about result caps or pagination behavior despite a limit parameter.

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 no filler; the core capability is front-loaded and the optional pass filter and return payload follow in a single clause each.

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 the returned fields and even mentions forecast links, which is the right level of detail for a search tool. The missing piece is any note on result limiting or default behavior, which matters for a tool with a limit parameter.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by naming the facets query searches (name, country, state, range) and explaining the pass filter, but the limit parameter and its 1-100 bounds are never explained, and pass enum semantics (epic/ikon) are left to the schema.

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), resource (ski resorts), dataset size, and the searchable facets (name, country, state, range, pass). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling find_ski_resorts, leaving the agent to guess which lookup is appropriate.

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, and listing the searchable facets implies when the tool applies. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when not to use it, and no routing to find_ski_resorts or ski_conditions.

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