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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by noting demo and test guests are returned separately, which is not visible in the schema or annotations. It doesn't detail the exact ranking criteria, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every clause adds value. The no-input instruction and usage timing are both included without redundancy.

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?

The tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and the demo/test separation. Minor gap: it doesn't specify what 'passport status' comparison entails, but the output schema likely covers that.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties object). The description explicitly states 'Provide no input,' which is the only parameter-related guidance needed. Baseline 4 for zero-param tools 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: inspect resort standings, compare an agent's passport status, and receive ranked real agents. It also distinguishes itself by noting demo and test guests are returned separately, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like resort_passport.

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 description explicitly says 'Provide no input' and 'use after retrieving a passport or whenever comparing resort status,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It also implies this is a read-only comparison tool, distinct from check-in/check-out actions.

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