Ask SnowSure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds behavioral context by specifying it is text-only, quick (~1s), and does not render UI cards, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear opening, specific examples, and exclusions. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately sized for a Q&A tool with many use cases. The front-loading of purpose and explicit exclusions makes it concise and actionable.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, 1 required, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral details, and parameter hints. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. The description is complete enough for an agent to decide when to use the tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds usage context (e.g., locale for language, partnerId for client hint, hemisphere when not resort-scoped) but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Text-only Q&A grounded in SnowSure data' and lists specific use cases (open-ended questions, comparisons, trivia). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by stating it never handles photo or gallery requests and directs to get_resort_photos and get_resort_info.

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 description provides explicit when-to-use guidance through a detailed list of use cases and when-not-to-use guidance by stating 'NEVER use for photo/gallery/picture requests (→ get_resort_photos) or resort guide cards (→ get_resort_info).' It also mentions the response time (~1s) and that it does not render UI cards.

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