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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, open-world tool. The description goes much further, explaining lift-state semantics (reported, none_listed, source_error), operator-reported provenance with an as-of time, and the distinction between none_listed and closed. It also clarifies which data are modeled versus official.

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 overview is front-loaded and every clause describes actual return content, so the length is largely justified for a rich status tool. However, it is a dense single sentence, and slightly better structure would improve scanability.

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 and high complexity, the description carries the burden of explaining the return payload and does so across lifts, opening dates, forecasts, snow estimates, road conditions, and webcams. It also explains data quality states, leaving little ambiguity about what the agent will receive.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including that resort accepts an id or name. The description repeats the id-or-name input but does not add meaning for include_lifts beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific scope: 'Everything known about one resort,' then enumerates the exact data returned. It clearly distinguishes a full single-resort status lookup from siblings like ski_compare_resorts, ski_find_nearby_resorts, and ski_get_region_summary.

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 single-resort scope is implied by 'one resort,' but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ski_open_now or ski_search_resorts. There are no exclusions or routing conditions.

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