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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the auth token requirement (NOMADSTAYS_MCP_AGENT_TOKEN) and the fact that the response merges platform-wide options with per-Stay selections. No rate-limit or pagination detail, so not 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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior and the options-vs-selections distinction, then prerequisites, then examples, then auth. Efficient, though the repeated group-name list overlaps with the schema description and could be trimmed.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining the return shape (all supported languages plus the currently selected ones). With prerequisites, auth requirement and scope all stated, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the group examples and 'EntryID' for stayId. The description largely repeats those examples; its only marginal addition is clarifying that group scopes to a single checkbox group. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Get the available options AND current selections for one facility/checkbox group on a Stay') and gives a concrete worked example ('Languages Spoken'). The dual-return nature (options + selections) distinguishes it clearly from getFacilityGroups (options only) and updateStayFacilities (mutation).

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 routes the agent to getFacilityGroups when the group name is unknown, and lists common group names to reduce that need. It does not, however, contrast against updateStayFacilities or explain what to do with the returned selections, so the 'when not to use' side is thin.

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