Lift-operation risk

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

Beyond annotations that confirm read-only and idempotent behavior, the description adds valuable details: the forecast source (Open-Meteo), time horizon (48 hours), specific risk factors (wind, visibility, cold, heavy snow), and a critical caveat that it is not the resort's decision. No contradictions with 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 concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the core question 'Will the lifts run?', followed by essential details and a clear caveat. Every word adds value.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, inputs, and limitations. It provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the only parameter ('slug' with description 'Resort slug'). The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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 that the tool provides a 48-hour operating-risk estimate for lifts, using a specific verb 'get' and resource 'operating risk'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on lift operation risk, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 implicitly tells when to use (to check if lifts will run) and when not to rely solely on it (modeled guidance, not the resort's own decision). It lacks explicit alternatives but provides clear context.

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