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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: data is operator-reported, and missing counts are explained as either no lifts listed or unreadable. It does not mention rate limits or output format, but for a read-only tool, this is sufficient.

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 with zero waste: the first sentence front-loads the core purpose and sorting criterion, and the second adds critical data-handling context. Both sentences earn their 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?

Given the simple schema (one parameter, no output schema) and annotations, the description covers purpose, sorting, data source, and missing-data behavior. It could briefly mention the response structure (e.g., list of resorts with counts), but it is largely complete for an agent to call it 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%, with the 'resorts' parameter fully described as 'Resort ids or names'. The description reiterates the 10-item limit but adds no new syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (compare) and resource (resorts) with a clear focus on running-lift counts and sorting. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling tool or differentiate itself from ski_get_resort_status, though the comparison nature makes it distinguishable.

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 implies usage by specifying 'up to 10 resorts' and sorting, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ski_get_resort_status or ski_search_resorts. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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