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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond annotations: a hard 20-match cap and the fact that the bulk resort index is not exposed. It stops short of describing ordering/truncation behavior when the cap is hit.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler; the primary capability is front-loaded and the result cap follows as a secondary constraint.

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 and 0% schema description coverage across four parameters (including a nested object), the description covers the search axes but omits the limit semantics, default value, and what matches look like. It is adequate to call the tool but not to predict its behavior precisely.

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 compensate. It maps loosely onto query, country and near ('name, country or distance') but never explains the nested lat/lon object, the 1-20 limit bounds, or the default of 10, leaving a real gap for a 4-parameter tool.

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 and resource ('Find ski resorts worldwide') and names the three search dimensions (name, country, distance). It is clear what the tool does, though it never contrasts itself with close siblings like nearby_resorts or suggest_resort, which also surface resorts.

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?

Usage is implied by the search dimensions, and the note that it 'does not expose the bulk resort index' signals a use case boundary. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as nearby_resorts for distance-based lookups or suggest_resort.

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