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

The annotations already declare this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the date-range cap, pagination limit, auth requirement, and the shape of returned stay records.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core scope, record fields, pagination, and auth requirement in three short clauses. Every phrase carries useful information with no unnecessary wording.

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?

For a read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it correctly: date range, return fields, pagination, and auth. It is only missing explicit sibling routing guidance and status-filter semantics.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the schema documents from and to but leaves page and status without descriptions. The description clarifies that page is for additional rows beyond 200, but it does not explain the status filter behavior or how the listed fields relate to the status parameter.

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 a specific resource and scope: stays touching a date range, with a 31-day limit and listed record fields. It distinguishes the operation from a generic stay lookup by emphasizing the date range and pagination, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as stay or load_stays.

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?

It provides useful usage constraints: maximum 31 days, 200 rows per call, use page for more, and owner sign-in required. However, it does not state when to use this tool instead of related siblings like stay, load_stays, or availability, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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