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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The one-word verb "List" restates readOnly rather than adding context: no pagination, no filter behaviour, no result shape, nothing beyond the annotation set.

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?

A single six-word sentence with zero filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though it leans toward under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 low-complexity, zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it tells the agent what is listed but not in what form or how results should be used downstream.

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 description coverage is 100% on the single optional "query" object, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax, allowed keys, or filtering examples, which is a baseline 3 situation rather than an error.

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 ("List") and resource ("Stay Pass checks and sources"), so the agent knows this is a discovery/enumeration endpoint. It never names its closest sibling (stay_check) or explains that the catalogue exposes the checks that stay_check executes, so differentiation rests on the naming pattern rather than the text.

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 description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative. An agent must infer from the sibling naming convention that stay_catalogue is for discovering valid check/source identifiers before calling stay_check.

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