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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety is known. The description adds an auth token requirement and the mandatory Wi-Fi behavior, providing valuable context beyond what annotations offer.

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 sentences, each serving a clear purpose: purpose/examples, mandatory Wi-Fi caveat, auth requirement. No wasted words and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, special behavior, and auth. It's sufficient for an agent to select and invoke. Minor gap: doesn't specify return format, but the examples imply a list of strings.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, the description doesn't need to explain parameters; it adds contextual meaning by linking the output to roomFacilityFk usage.

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 ('List') and identifies the exact resource: all room-level amenity/facility options. It explicitly references roomFacilityFk in createStayRoom/updateStayRoom, distinguishing it from sibling tools like getAllAmenities or getRoomAmenities.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to discover valid roomFacilityFk values for room creation/update endpoints. It also provides a usage caveat that Wi-Fi is mandatory and always included. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or state when it should not be used.

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