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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond that: it discloses the response shape (nextAction hint, missingFields list) and the required NOMADSTAYS_MCP_AGENT_TOKEN, which annotations do not convey.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the return content and auth requirement following. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description takes on the burden of describing returns and does so (nextAction hint, missingFields list for incomplete applications), plus notes the token requirement. For a single-parameter read tool this is complete.

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 100% for the single applicationId parameter, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond that baseline, so 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Get the full current state of one Experience Application') that is plainly distinguishable from getStayApplication and getCoworkingApplication by the resource noun. It is clear and specific, but never explicitly contrasts itself with those sibling getters.

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?

Usage is implied (fetch the state of an existing application) rather than stated. There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance, and the only routing hint toward listExperienceApplications lives in the schema parameter description, not the tool description itself.

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