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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with them by framing this as a lookup over a fixed set of resorts. It adds that results are ids, but says nothing about pagination, the 25-default/250-max limit, or behavior when a query matches nothing — gaps that matter for a search 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?

Three tight sentences: capability first, return value second, empty-query fallback last. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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 discloses the return shape (resort ids), which is the key thing an agent needs to chain into other tools. The remaining hole is limit/pagination behavior, which is neither in the schema nor the description.

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% (query documented, limit not). The description compensates by expanding query semantics well beyond the schema's 'Name, id, or region, case-insensitive', adding region tag examples and season pass matching. It leaves the limit parameter undocumented in both places, so it is not fully compensatory.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Find the ski resorts this server covers') and enumerates the searchable dimensions, plus notes it returns resort ids for other tools, which implicitly separates it from siblings like ski_get_resort_status or ski_compare_resorts. It does not explicitly disambiguate against ski_list_regions, which also surfaces regions, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Clear workflow positioning: it produces resort ids 'to pass to the other tools', and the empty-query case is explicitly defined ('Leave query empty to list everything'). No explicit when-not or named alternative is given, so it stops short of a 5.

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