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

Annotations already establish it is a safe read (readOnlyHint=true), yet the description adds substantial non-obvious context: Wi-Fi is a test-freshness score not a speed rating, Operator Information is owner-only and never writable via MCP, missingItems carries labels to relay, Stay Details auto-recalculates after edits, and an auth token is required. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot supply.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage then caveats. It is dense and fairly long, but nearly every sentence carries distinct, actionable information, so little is wasted.

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 read-only status tool with no output schema, the description fills the gap by enumerating what the six cards are and what overall completion plus missingItems contain. An agent knows what to expect and how to relay results.

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% and the schema already documents stayId as the EntryID with a pointer to getMyStays. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline 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?

The description states a precise verb+resource: returning the Stay's listing-completion scores across six named cards plus an overall percentage. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like getMyStayDetail or getMyStayFacilities because the resource is onboarding/completion status, not 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?

'Use this when a host asks how far along they are with onboarding or what's left to finish' gives a clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it (e.g. versus getMyStayDetail), so it stops just short of a 5.

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