Road & chain control

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds coverage limitations (specific states, 'no road data' fallback), data sources (Caltrans, WSDOT, etc.), and authoritative link, providing transparency beyond 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?

Three sentences convey purpose, coverage, and caveats efficiently. No wasted words, front-loaded with action and resource.

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 tool has output schema (not shown), description adequately covers what is returned (conditions, states, fallback), data sources, and authoritative note. No gaps for the stated functionality.

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?

Single required parameter 'slug' has 100% schema coverage with description 'Resort slug'. Description does not add further parameter semantics, so 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 returns driving access info (chain-control, mountain-pass, road-surface) for resorts in CA, WA, CO, UT via specific DOTs. It distinguishes from siblings like get_road_cameras and get_road_weather by specifying the type of road data and coverage area.

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 use when resort road access conditions are needed in covered states, and notes 'no road data' outside. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives among siblings, leaving some ambiguity.

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