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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine nuance — that snow reliability is 'modelled' rather than observed — but says nothing about data freshness, caching, or failure behavior when a resort is unmapped.

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 listing the payload; dense but no filler and no repetition of the title. Slightly list-heavy, though every clause names a distinct returned field.

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?

No output schema, but the description effectively enumerates the return payload (terrain, lifts, vertical, run length, facts, season dates, snow reliability), which is what an agent needs to decide to call it. The gaps are the unexplained 'resort' argument format and the absence of routing guidance.

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 required parameter ('resort') with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It never states the expected format (name vs. slug vs. ID), matching rules for ambiguous names, or length limits beyond the schema's maxLength.

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 ('Read') and enumerates the resource: OSM terrain inventory, lift fleet, vertical, longest run, Wikidata facts, season dates, modelled snow reliability. An agent can tell this is a static resort-facts lookup rather than a conditions/forecast tool, but it never explicitly names the siblings it differs from.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance at all. Despite heavy sibling overlap (snow_reliability, get_conditions, where_is_it_snowing, best_time_to_go), the description gives no hint which to pick for a given question.

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