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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the auth token requirement and specifies the return content (nextAction hint and missingFields list for incomplete applications), which is not present in the schema or annotations.

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 immediately states the core purpose, then provides key additional details (return content, auth requirement) without unnecessary words. Every clause earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema or annotation information.

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-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (full state, nextAction hint, missingFields) and mentions the auth requirement. Given the low complexity, this is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 for the single parameter is 100%, and the schema itself already provides guidance ('use listCoworkingApplications to find it'). The description does not add additional parameter syntax or format details, so it stays at the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('one Coworking Application') and scope ('full current state'). It also adds distinctive details (nextAction hint, missingFields list) that differentiate it from listCoworkingApplications and other get tools.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need the full current state of a single application, particularly to see a nextAction hint or missing required fields. It also notes an auth requirement (NOMADSTAYS_MCP_AGENT_TOKEN). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention direct alternatives beyond the schema hint for applicationId.

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