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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial non-obvious context: Wi-Fi is a recency-of-test score rather than a speed rating, Operator Information carries an owner-only missingItems list, Stay Details auto-recalculates after MCP edits to details/contacts/facilities/photos, and the call requires NOMADSTAYS_MCP_AGENT_TOKEN. These are exactly the behavioural traits annotations cannot express.

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 purpose and the enumerated score list before the caveats. The trailing notes are dense but each one prevents a real misinterpretation (Wi-Fi semantics, owner-only fields, recalculation timing), though the passage could be tightened with bullets or shorter clauses.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so: six named scores, an overall percentage, and a missingItems label list. It also covers auth requirements and recalculation timing, leaving nothing an agent needs to call and interpret 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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining that stayId is the EntryID found via getMyStays. The description adds no further parameter syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 Stay's listing-completion scores') and enumerates the exact six component scores plus an overall percentage. An agent can distinguish this from getMyStayDetail or getMyStays without opening any schema, since it is explicitly a derived scoring view rather than raw 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?

Gives a concrete triggering situation: 'Use this when a host asks how far along they are with onboarding or what's left to finish.' That is a clear usage context, but it does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it (e.g. versus getMyStayDetail for raw field values).

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