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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior — Wi-Fi is mandatory and always included even when not explicitly selected — plus the NOMADSTAYS_MCP_AGENT_TOKEN auth requirement, both of which affect how an agent interprets and reuses the result.

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 tight clauses: what is listed, the Wi-Fi caveat, the auth requirement. Front-loaded with the purpose, zero filler, and every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 still characterizes the return set (every room-level option, with examples) and flags the mandatory Wi-Fi inclusion, and it notes auth. It stops just short of full completeness by not clarifying its relationship to the closely named sibling option-listing tools.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It does usefully name the consumer field (roomFacilityFk) that the returned option identifiers feed into, which is extra semantic value beyond an empty schema.

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?

States a precise verb+resource (list every room-level amenity/facility option) and anchors it to a concrete use site — the roomFacilityFk field in createStayRoom/updateStayRoom — plus example values. An agent can distinguish it from getAllAmenities, getRoomAmenities, getFacilityGroups and getStayTypeOptions without opening any schema, even though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: by tying the output to roomFacilityFk in createStayRoom/updateStayRoom, it signals this is the lookup to run before writing room data. However, with near-identical siblings (getRoomAmenities, getAllAmenities, getFacilityGroups) no when-to-use-this-vs-that guidance is given, leaving the agent to guess which option-list is the right one.

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