Regional snow summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating safe behavior. The description adds that the summary includes 'statistics and top resorts' but offers no additional transparency about performance, latency, or data aggregation.

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 a single efficient sentence with no redundancy. It conveys the core purpose clearly, though it could optionally include a brief note on parameter usage without hurting conciseness.

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 low complexity (two optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and scope. It does not need to detail return values.

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% and both parameters have descriptions. The description aligns with the schema by mentioning 'region or country' but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('summary of snow conditions across an entire region or country with statistics and top resorts'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_resort and get_snow_report, which target specific resorts, but does not explicitly mention this differentiation.

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 for obtaining aggregated snow data but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, relying on the user's understanding of the sibling context.

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