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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false), and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: server-side country-specific rule enforcement, rejections that name the offending field, profile-based name defaulting, and the required NOMADSTAYS_MCP_AGENT_TOKEN. The main gap is that no output schema exists and the description never says what a successful call returns.

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 action, then prerequisites, then behavioral caveats, in a tight sequence with no filler. It is dense but every clause adds actionable information, so length is justified rather than padded.

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 24-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema, this covers prerequisites, defaulting, validation behavior, and auth, which is the important surface area. It omits the approval/submission lifecycle (that submitStayApplication is the eventual finalizer) and any statement of what the call returns, which are meaningful gaps at this parameter count.

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 33% against 24 parameters, so the description carries a heavy burden. It clarifies the country/model ID resolution path and the applicant-name defaulting, but roughly two-thirds of the parameters (zip, mobile, website, hasKitchen, downloadSpeed, workFacilities, laundryFacilities, etc.) are explained in neither place.

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 ('Start a new Stay Application for the caller'), clearly differentiating it from the save/submit/read siblings in the same family. It does not explicitly contrast itself with createCoworkingApplication or createExperienceApplication, but the 'Stay' qualifier plus the draft-creating framing make the scope unambiguous.

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 real operational guidance: call getCountryOptions and getBusinessModelOptions first, and use saveStayApplication later for incremental filling. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., that submitStayApplication must follow to finalize), so the lifecycle guidance is implied rather than complete.

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