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

Annotations already declare this is a safe, idempotent read, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the daily scoring cadence, fixed formula with scoredBy always 'algorithmic', the tier thresholds, the five weighted components, and the 'available: false before the first scoring run' edge case. That is rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition, then tier thresholds, component weights, and finally use cases. It is a single dense paragraph but nearly every clause carries distinct information; slightly heavy for the size but not wasteful.

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 needn't detail return values, yet it usefully previews the score/history structure and the unavailability state. For a one-param read tool, nothing an agent needs 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 coverage is 100% with a single documented slug parameter, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides (kebab-case, from search_resorts), so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource: PeakCam's 0–100 Snow Score for one resort, scored once daily by a fixed formula, and explicitly distinguishes itself from ranking tools (find_powder, compare_resorts). An agent can tell exactly what value this returns without opening a 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 explicit trigger phrases ('how good is X right now and why', 'score X out of 100', 'is X better than last week') and names the alternatives for a ranking use case (find_powder, compare_resorts, /api/v1/snow-report?sort=score). When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both covered.

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