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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the valid value set is conditional on the Stay (boutique fixed range vs. standard restricted to already-used types) and it discloses the required NOMADSTAYS_MCP_AGENT_TOKEN, which isn't in structured fields.

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, all front-loaded and purposeful: purpose, dependency rule, auth requirement. The middle sentence is dense but carries genuinely useful domain logic rather than redundant phrasing.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description makes clear the return is the set of valid room-type values, including the conditional logic that determines them. It is complete enough to invoke correctly; only minor detail on the returned structure is absent, which is acceptable for an options-list tool.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% (stayId is documented as 'The Stay's EntryID'). The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (List) and resource (valid room types for a specific Stay's rooms) and ties the output to the roomTypeFK consumed by createStayRoom/updateStayRoom. This clearly separates it from the sibling getStayTypeOptions, which deals with Stay types rather than room types.

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 parenthetical naming roomTypeFK in createStayRoom/updateStayRoom effectively tells the agent when this lookup is needed. It gives clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions among the many other *Options tools.

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