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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description is not carrying that burden. It adds genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond them: operator-level archiving eligibility, the 6-hour PeakCam capture cadence, and that frames are returned as links rather than inline. It omits pagination/rate-limit behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler, and the core capability is front-loaded before the usage examples. The "never returned inline" caveat is important but placed last, slightly weakening the front-loading.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the remaining agent-relevant context — archiving eligibility, capture cadence, and time-window bounds — so nothing needed to call it correctly 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 slug, camId, and hours with formats and defaults. The description restates the 1–48 hour window and the one-cam-vs-all-cams distinction but adds no syntax or semantic detail the schema lacks, 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+resource (archived still frames for a resort's webcams), the temporal scope (1–48 hours), and the return form (links with capture times, plus the newest storm frame). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_resort_cams, which covers live cams, without needing to open either schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage scenarios ("what did it look like this morning", "show me the last storm") and states an availability precondition (only archiving-allowed cams appear). It never explicitly routes the agent to the alternative for live footage, so it stops short of the when-not guidance a 5 would require.

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