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 meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating the required NOMADSTAYS_MCP_AGENT_TOKEN and listing the returned fields (stayId, title, listed status). It does not disclose pagination, sorting, or rate limits, 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence carries useful information: ownership scope, return fields, usage guidance, and authentication requirement. There is no redundancy or waste.

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?

Given a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema but rich annotations, the description covers everything needed: what it returns, why to use it, and the authentication requirement. Return value semantics are explained inline, compensating for the missing output schema. No critical call-time information is absent.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description correctly omits parameter details. No additional meaning beyond the empty schema is needed.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: list all Stays owned by the account bound to the MCP agent token. It clearly differentiates from public search tools like getStaysByCountry and from the singular detail tool getMyStayDetail by emphasizing ownership and the account context. It also names the return fields, making the purpose concrete.

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 states the primary usage: use this to find a stayId before calling any other owner-scoped tool. This gives clear context for invocation and workflow position. However, it does not name a specific alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the 5-level example that names the alternative and exclusion condition.

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