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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real context beyond them: data provenance distinguishing resort-confirmed dates from third-party projections, plus the possible values of the status field. It still does not state refresh cadence or how stale projected dates can be.

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, both load-bearing: the first covers scope, status values and ordering; the second covers data provenance. Nothing is repeated and the most important scope information 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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described. Between the description (scope, ordering, status vocabulary, data provenance) and the fully documented 2-parameter schema, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 100% and the schema already documents both parameters in detail, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the behavior of omitting `state` (returns every resort) and the output ordering ('soonest opening first'), neither of which the schema expresses; only `limit` receives no additional explanation.

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 (opening/closing dates per resort) plus the returned status values and sort order, which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool, so an agent infers distinctness from the resource alone rather than being routed.

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 scope clause ('for every resort, or those in one state/province') implies when to pass `state` versus leaving it out, which is genuine usage guidance. There is no when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_resort_conditions or get_forecast when the agent actually wants live status rather than season dates.

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