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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds genuine context the annotations do not: the data source (local ERA5 archive) and a conditional coverage limitation on the crowd-scorer portion, which explains why results may be partial.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence beginning with the action verb, with no filler. It is dense but every clause earns its place by naming the two distinct outputs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it only names two outputs without indicating format, time range, or what happens when crowd-scorer coverage is absent. Adequate for a simple read-only tool but with clear gaps.

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?

One parameter ('resort') with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden and largely does not — it merely references 'the resort' without specifying whether a name, slug, or ID is expected. The param is self-evident enough that this stays at minimum-viable rather than failing.

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+resource: historical snow odds plus quiet-week guidance. The word 'historical' implicitly separates it from forecast siblings like get_forecast and get_extended_outlook, but it never names an alternative or explicitly contrasts with snow_reliability, which sounds close in intent.

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 phrase 'where the crowd scorer covers the resort' discloses a coverage precondition for the quiet-week half, which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-sibling guidance and no stated exclusions, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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