Plan a ski trip

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'recommendations'—e.g., what data sources are used, how conditions are evaluated, or if any side effects exist (none per 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?

Two sentences are concise and front-load the core action. However, the first sentence is slightly vague ('conditions' is broad), but overall economical.

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 has 4 optional parameters, an output schema, and many siblings, the description is adequate but vague. It doesn't hint at the SnowSure scoring or that it uses non-ski conditions. The output schema covers return details, so that gap is acceptable.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description's mention of 'dates, preferences, and conditions' aligns but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ski trip recommendations') and mentions suggesting best resorts, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like find_resorts_by_criteria, which may overlap.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_resorts_by_criteria or compare_resorts. The description implies it's for trip planning with dates and preferences but does not state when it is preferred or excluded.

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