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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning the auth requirement ('Requires NOMADSTAYS_MCP_AGENT_TOKEN') and implying a read of current state ('current values'), which goes beyond the structured 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?

Each of the three sentences earns its place: purpose, usage guidance, and auth requirement. No fluff or redundancy; the description is front-loaded with the primary purpose and stays under three sentences.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description is complete. It specifies what is returned (title, description, listed status), the scope (your stays), the prerequisite (call before updateStayDetail), and the token requirement, covering all necessary context for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage for stayId, including guidance to use getMyStays. The tool description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond that, so the schema carries the full burden, matching the baseline score of 3.

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 ('the current title, description, and listed status for one of your Stays'). It distinguishes from siblings by scope ('your Stays') and by naming the exact fields returned, unlike getStayByID which likely returns broader stay data.

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 states when to use: 'Call this before updateStayDetail so the agent knows the current values and doesn't accidentally overwrite them.' This provides a clear prerequisite and rationale, effectively guiding tool selection relative to the updateStayDetail sibling.

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