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

Beyond the read-only annotations, it discloses ordering, update cadence of about every 90 minutes, all-resorts scope, and that each line includes an as-of time. It also warns that 'running lift' means what the board says, not that the season has started, and that out-of-season boards may list sightseeing lifts or be stale.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds ordering, region options, cadence, caveat, and alternative in a logical order. It is somewhat dense, especially the region parenthetical, but every sentence provides actionable context rather than filler.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, it explains the key behavior: current lift-board status, ordering, region filtering, update cadence, as-of timestamps, and the out-of-season caveat. It is nearly complete, though it leaves limit/pagination behavior to the schema and does not describe the full return fields.

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?

The description adds useful meaning for region beyond the schema, with examples such as country, state, season pass, and ski_list_regions tags. However, the limit parameter is not mentioned at all, and schema coverage is only 50%, so the description only partially compensates for the undocumented parameter semantics.

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 resource and condition: ski resorts whose own lift board lists running lifts right now, ordered by most running lifts. It also distinguishes itself from ski_get_resort_status, which gives a live per-lift answer for one resort.

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?

It gives clear usage context for a broad current-open-resorts query and explicitly names ski_get_resort_status as the alternative for a live per-lift answer about one resort. It also points to ski_list_regions for valid region tags, though it does not cover other ski siblings such as ski_search_resorts or ski_compare_resorts.

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