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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds meaningful context by explaining that the tool returns all platform-supported options plus the currently selected ones, using a concrete example. It also discloses the required auth token, offering behavioral details beyond structured fields.

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 compact—three sentences that front-load the core purpose, then add a clarifying example, usage guidance, and auth requirement. No filler or redundancy; every sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description adequately describes the response concept (all supported options + current selections) via example. It also provides necessary prerequisite guidance and parameter context. It could be more precise about the exact response structure, but it is sufficient for a simple 2-param read-only tool.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description reinforces the exact group name requirement and provides examples, but does not add significant semantic value beyond what the schema already states. Baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: getting both available options and current selections for a facility/checkbox group on a Stay. It uses a specific example ('Languages Spoken') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getFacilityGroups (which lists group names) and updateStayFacilities (which modifies selections).

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?

It explicitly says to call getFacilityGroups first if the exact group name is unknown, which provides direct guidance on prerequisites and an alternative. It also lists common group names, giving clear context on when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly state exclusions for other tools like room-related facility queries.

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