Compare resorts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe read operations. The description adds context about the data source ('SnowSure conditions resolver/contract') and optional dimension filtering, which provides value 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 extremely concise: two sentences, no wasted words. The core purpose and key constraints are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 presence of an output schema (so return values need not be described), the description sufficiently covers purpose, parameter constraints, and data provenance. No gaps are evident for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful examples (e.g., '["verbier","val-disere"]') for the slugs parameter and lists the optional dimensions, enhancing understanding beyond the schema alone. Both parameters are clearly elaborated.

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 'Compare 2–4 resorts side by side across snow, terrain, and live conditions', specifying the verb (compare), resource (resorts), and scope (2-4, multiple dimensions). This distinguishes it from single-resort tools like get_resort or specialized comparisons like compare_forecasts.

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 implies usage when a side-by-side comparison of multiple resorts across multiple dimensions is needed, and mentions optional dimensional restriction. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for a single resort or only forecasts) or name alternatives among siblings, leaving some ambiguity.

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