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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: it signals that the SNOTEL station may be absent ('if any') and that the response includes a full set of published URL variants. It does not mention auth or rate limits, which is a minor gap for a read tool.

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?

The scope statement is front-loaded and the routing sentence is short and purposeful. The long mid-sentence enumeration is dense but every listed field is informative for tool selection, so it mostly earns its place.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it usefully summarizes them for selection purposes. Combined with full annotation coverage and a 100%-documented schema, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly; only operational details like auth or rate limits are absent.

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% and the single slug parameter is fully documented in the schema, including format and the search_resorts sourcing hint. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (resort profile) and enumerates exactly what it contains: location, elevations, links, SNOTEL station, season status, cam counts, and published URLs. It explicitly carves out the scope it does NOT cover ('without the snow numbers'), which cleanly separates it from get_resort_conditions.

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?

It routes the agent explicitly: 'Use get_resort_conditions for today's snow,' giving both the alternative and the condition that selects it. The negative scoping phrase also tells the agent when not to reach for this tool for snow data, so no inference is required.

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