Avalanche bulletin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that the data is relayed from an official warning service with issuer/link, and describes the 'no bulletin' return value. This provides additional behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences plus a warning, all front-loaded with the main purpose. No redundant information; every sentence adds value. Efficient and clear.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown), return format details are not needed. The description covers geographic scope, data source, and edge case behavior. Annotations cover safety. Slightly lacking update frequency, but overall sufficient.

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?

Only one parameter 'slug' with schema description 'Resort slug, e.g. jackson-hole'. The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline score 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 it provides the current avalanche danger bulletin for a resort's forecast zone, specifying geographic scope (US, Canada, Switzerland in v1) and edge case behavior (returns 'no bulletin' when unavailable). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_snow_report or get_weather_forecast.

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 the tool should be used when official avalanche info is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It includes a warning about not being a substitute, but lacks clear guidance on when to prefer this tool over others.

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