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

The annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent write that is not destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the report goes live immediately and is labeled as relayed via an AI assistant. It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or response 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?

Three short sentences with no wasted words, front-loading the source-integrity constraint before the behavioral disclosure. Every sentence contributes directly to correct use of the tool.

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 write tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the definition omits all parameter semantics, required fields, and the meaning of tags/rating/observed_today. It covers source integrity and immediacy well but leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 0% for five parameters, and the description adds no information about resort, text, tags, rating, or observed_today. With low coverage and no parameter details in the description, an agent must infer all parameter meaning from the schema alone.

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 action ('relay a report') and implicitly identifies the resource as a snow report, though it does not explicitly say 'add a snow report' as the name and title do. It distinguishes from sibling read tools like get_snow_reports by being the submission path, but does not name an alternative.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Only relay a report from a person who is at, or was just at, the resort') and a clear exclusion ('Never invent a report'). It does not name alternative sibling tools or explain when to use get_snow_reports instead, but the context is clear.

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