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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: status values (ready/limited/unavailable), the meaning of each, and the fallback behavior of returning the resort page when no tour is available. It does not mention latency or link-expiry traits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences that front-load the core outcome (a link to a 3D tour) and then pack status semantics into a compact parenthetical. It is efficient, though the long nested clauses around status make it slightly harder to parse.

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 explains the return value (a link) and the degraded return (resort page). It covers the status lifecycle an agent needs to interpret results, though the silent 'level' parameter leaves one input unaccounted for.

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%, so the description must carry the burden. It explains 'pick' (names matching route_on_mountain, with picker ids for ambiguity) and 'runs' (which runs the tour covers), but says nothing about 'level' (all/easy/intermediate) or how 'resort' is resolved, leaving key inputs under-explained.

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: it returns a link that plays a simulated 3D flyby tour of a resort or of named runs. It distinguishes itself from the broader resort-info siblings by naming route_on_mountain as the reference for pick-name matching, though it never frames itself as an alternative to a specific sibling.

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 implies usage ('or a tour of runs you name') and references route_on_mountain for name-matching behavior, which hints at shared context. However, it never states explicitly when to call this tool versus route_on_mountain or get_resort_media, leaving the choice to inference.

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