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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value: it discloses the required NOMADSTAYS_MCP_AGENT_TOKEN credential and clarifies the field is read-only and cannot be edited via MCP or host UI. It doesn't cover return shape, which is the only 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?

A single front-loaded sentence; the parenthetical is dense but each clause (read-only, not editable, token requirement) earns its place. Slightly convoluted nesting keeps it from a 5.

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 no-arg enum lookup with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, safety, and auth. It stops short of describing the returned value structure, which an agent might want, but the essentials are present.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The parenthetical identifies the field the values map to (businessModelId), which gives useful context, but there is no parameter syntax to explain.

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 (valid values for a Stay's listing/business model) and names the underlying field businessModelId. An agent can distinguish it from sibling enum lookups such as getStayTypeOptions or getRoomTypeOptions.

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?

Implied usage is clear from the options-style name and the 'valid values' framing, but the description never states when to call this versus the many sibling *Options tools or what the returned values feed into.

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