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

Annotations only declare the generic mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false), but the description adds substantial context: no VAT/tourism-number/business-model rules, no application fee, no billing step at all, and the auth requirement (NOMADSTAYS_MCP_AGENT_TOKEN). This is exactly the behavioral disclosure annotations do not carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the differentiators, then the prerequisite and token requirement. No filler, though the single long paragraph could be split for scanability.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 8 loosely-specified params, the description covers workflow, prerequisites and auth. It stops short of explaining what the call returns or how the save/submit siblings fit, which an agent would still need to reason out.

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 only 13%, so the description must compensate. It names and prioritizes five fields (coworkingName, applicantName, applicantEmail, city, country) and clarifies the country format, but leaves address, website and telephone unaddressed and does not explain the required-vs-optional mismatch (all 8 params are non-required in schema yet described as needed for submit).

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Start a new Coworking Application for the caller') and explicitly contrasts itself with the Stay/Experience application siblings, saying it is 'Much simpler'. An agent can separate this from createStayApplication and createExperienceApplication without opening schemas.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite ('Call getCountryOptions first') and describes the intended workflow (once the five key fields are present, nextAction goes straight to 'submit'). No explicit when-not-to-use or pointer to saveCoworkingApplication/submitCoworkingApplication siblings, which would be needed for a 5.

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