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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds value by listing the specific content returned, but it does not disclose edge cases like not-found behavior or response format. Since annotations carry the safety burden, the description's additional content detail earns a 3, not lower.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose ('One stay as its page shows it') and then lists the key fields. There is no redundancy or filler, and every element contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 a simple one-parameter getter with an output schema (as indicated by the signal), the description covers the returned fields and the annotations cover safety. It does not mention error handling or pagination (not applicable here), but for a get single item, the description is largely complete. A minor gap is not specifying the return format beyond the field list, but that is likely covered by the output schema.

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?

The input schema documents the 'slug' parameter fully with a description and pattern. The tool description adds no further semantic detail about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies given 100% schema coverage. The description does not compensate or add nuance beyond what the schema provides.

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 'stay', and clarifies it returns a single stay as shown on its page. The enumerated fields (description, address, location, website, rate, amenities, collections, photo URLs) make the tool's scope precise and distinguishable from list/search siblings like list_stays or search_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?

The description implies usage for retrieving a single stay by slug, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as 'search_stays' or 'list_*' tools. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing, leaving the selection to inference from the sibling names.

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