Live snow & forecast

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds behavioral context: the tool returns an 'interactive UI' based on card parameter, and details content of each card. No contradictions.

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?

Description is somewhat lengthy but necessary to cover all four card types and usage mappings. Front-loads the key point about the required card parameter. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet list) but still effective.

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 complexity (4 card options, 2 parameters, output schema exists), the description fully covers usage: explains each card's content, gives request mapping, and provides alternatives. No gaps remain.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). Description adds significant value: natural language mapping for the card parameter (e.g., 'Resort guide' → card=guide) and example slug values. This enriches the schema definitions.

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 'Single-resort data' and explains each card type (guide, photos, snow, full). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_resort_info and get_resort_photos, which are mentioned as alternatives.

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?

Explicit instructions: 'REQUIRED card parameter', mappings from user requests to card values, and a preference note to use get_resort_info/get_resort_photos when available. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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