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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond that: the values are lookup IDs, not booleans, and a NOMADSTAYS_MCP_AGENT_TOKEN is required. It stops short of describing the shape or size of the returned list, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler. The resource enumeration is front-loaded, the boolean-vs-lookup warning comes before the usage instruction, and the auth requirement is a single trailing clause.

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 single-enum, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies enough: purpose, values-not-booleans warning, downstream usage, and an auth prerequisite. The only omission is how the returned options are structured (e.g. id/label pairs), which would help an agent map a name to a writable ID.

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% with an enum, so the baseline is 3; the description earns extra by explaining what the values mean semantically (lookup IDs such as 'Yes', 'No', 'On Request') and why the enum choice matters for the downstream writes. It does not restate the enum itself, which is correct.

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 names the specific verb (list valid values) and resource (Additional Information picklists: Children Allowed, Pets Allowed, Parking), and ties itself to the updateStayOrganisationalData workflow. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like getRoomTypeOptions or getCountryOptions without opening any schema.

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?

It explicitly prescribes the moment of use: 'call this to find the right value before writing petsAllowedId/childrenAllowedId/parkingId', naming the dependent tool and the exact fields it feeds. This is a clear when-to-call rule with an implied alternative (do not guess a value).

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