Ski pass details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds value by specifying the exact data fields returned (operator, pricing tiers, etc.). There is no contradiction, and the added detail helps the agent understand the output without relying solely on the output schema.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (single parameter), the presence of annotations covering behavior, and an output schema that likely details the return structure, the description is complete enough. It lists key output fields, and the agent can infer the rest from the schema.

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 single parameter 'passId' is well-documented in the schema (with examples). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves details for a multi-resort ski pass, listing specific examples (Epic, Ikon, Mountain Collective) and the kinds of details returned (operator, pricing tiers, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_passes and find_pass_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?

Description implies when to use (when you need details of a specific pass). Although it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, the sibling context makes usage clear. A slight improvement would be to directly contrast with compare_passes.

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