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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real non-annotated context: the NOMADSTAYS_MCP_AGENT_TOKEN credential requirement and the fact that the result represents current values to diff against before an update. It says nothing about error behavior (e.g. unknown stayId), which keeps it from 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?

Three compact sentences: what is returned first (the enumerated data), then the sequencing guidance, then the credential requirement. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned data categories, and it covers invocation prerequisites (token) and the downstream tool it feeds. For a single-parameter read-only fetch, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it 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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that stayId is the EntryID discoverable via getMyStays. The description never mentions the parameter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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?

Specific verb (get) plus a named resource (a Stay's organisational data) and an explicit enumeration of the fields returned: address, check-in/out policy, pets/children/parking, cancellation policy, tourism/land-registration numbers. This cleanly separates it from siblings such as getMyStayDetail, getMyStayFacilities, and getMyStayContacts without needing to open any schema.

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 an explicit workflow condition: call this before updateStayOrganisationalData so the agent knows current values, which names the sibling it complements and the sequencing rationale. It does not state any when-not-to-use case or contrast itself with the other getMyStay* readers, so it falls just short of fully explicit routing.

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