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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context: it discloses the account-bound scope, the specific return fields (stayId, title, listed status), and the authentication requirement (NOMADSTAYS_MCP_AGENT_TOKEN). This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't mention pagination or potential empty results.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states what the tool does, the second lists return fields and the primary use case, and the third notes the auth requirement. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and there is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation information.

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 simple zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the scope, return values, authentication need, and the practical use case (finding stayId). No additional context seems necessary for an agent to invoke this tool 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?

With zero parameters, the input schema provides no meaning to clarify. The description compensates by explaining that the tool returns stays owned by the token-bound account and includes stayId, which is useful context. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets that baseline.

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 specifies the action ('List all Stays'), the resource ('Stays owned by the account bound to the MCP agent token'), and the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from public stay search tools and owner-scoped detail tools by emphasizing the ownership scope and the 'find a stayId' purpose.

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?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use it ('use this to find a stayId before calling any other owner-scoped tool'), which is clear and actionable. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the 'before any other owner-scoped tool' instruction effectively implies a prerequisite role.

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