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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful traits (ids are meant for chaining; empty query returns the full list) but says nothing about the limit parameter's default of 25 or its 250 cap, which is the main undisclosed behavior.

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, zero filler, front-loaded with the searchable keys and followed immediately by the return-value and empty-query behavior. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 no output schema, the description correctly states what comes back (resort ids for chaining). For a two-parameter list tool with read-only annotations this is nearly complete; only the limit/pagination semantics are unaddressed.

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 only 50% (limit is undocumented), so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates the accepted query dimensions and gives concrete examples ('Colorado', 'Alps', 'Ikon Pass'), including the season-pass dimension that the schema's own query description omits. It does not explain limit/pagination, which is the remaining gap.

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 (find) and resource (ski resorts) with the exact lookup keys: name, id, region tag, and season pass. The phrase 'the ski resorts this server covers' also scopes it against the broader park/campground siblings, and it is clearly separable from ski_find_nearby_resorts and ski_list_regions.

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?

Tells the agent the downstream purpose ('Returns resort ids to pass to the other tools') and the empty-query behavior ('Leave query empty to list everything'), which is genuinely actionable context. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, e.g. when to prefer ski_find_nearby_resorts for geographic search.

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