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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious requirement – the NOMADSTAYS_MCP_AGENT_TOKEN auth need – which the annotations do not convey. It stops short of describing result volume or ordering, which keeps it from a 5.

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 short sentences, each load-bearing: what it lists, the examples that make the resource concrete, the routing instruction, and the auth prerequisite. The call-first guidance is front-loaded where an agent will see it.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, everything needed to call it correctly is present: purpose, example return values, sequencing relative to consumers, and the auth token. Nothing material is missing.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The example group names give the agent a sense of the value domain it will receive, a modest bonus over the empty schema.

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 ('List every facility/checkbox group name'), supplies concrete example values, and scopes it to the platform. An agent can immediately distinguish this discovery call from the getMyStayFacilities/updateStayFacilities siblings that consume its output.

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?

Explicitly prescribes when to call it: 'Call this first if you don't already know the exact group name to pass to getMyStayFacilities/updateStayFacilities.' It names the downstream alternatives and the condition (unknown group name) that selects this tool.

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