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

Annotations only cover read-only/non-destructive safety; the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: UTC interpretation of offset-less dates, the special rule that a date-only `to` covers the whole UTC day while a full-timestamp `to` stays exact, newest-first ordering, and the pagination contract with `nextCursor` null on the last page.

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?

Four tight sentences, ordered by importance: scope and ordering first, then filters, then the subtlest semantics, then pagination. No filler or restated field names.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, yet the description still usefully explains `nextCursor`. Filters, ordering, date edge cases, and paging are all covered; the only gap is guidance on when to use this versus sibling read tools like get_stay.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining timezone handling and the inclusive-day semantics of `to`, details the schema does not convey. It does not, however, cover the `personId`/`country` semantics, which remain schema-only.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the user's accommodation stays') and adds the ordering guarantee ('newest-first by check-in'), which cleanly separates it from get_stay (single item), log_stay, and delete_stay.

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 optional date-range and country filters frame the intended usage, and the pagination sentence tells the agent exactly how to continue. It stops short of naming when to prefer a sibling such as get_stay for a single record or search_locations for lookups, so it is clear context without explicit alternatives.

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