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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds two things they cannot: the NOMADSTAYS_MCP_AGENT_TOKEN auth requirement and the conditional return detail (nextAction hint, missingFields only when incomplete). That is real added context, though it says nothing about error behavior for an unknown or unauthorized applicationId.

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?

Two sentences, zero padding: the purpose and payload lead, the auth prerequisite follows. Everything is front-loaded and each clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the notable return fields (nextAction, missingFields). Combined with the auth requirement and a fully documented single parameter, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only edge-case failure behavior is unaddressed.

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%, so the schema already explains applicationId and where to get it. The description adds no format, range, or validation detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Get the full current state of one Stay Application') and scopes it to a single record, which cleanly separates it from listStayApplications and the save/submit siblings. It even previews the payload shape (nextAction hint, missingFields), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves.

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: fetching one application by ID is the natural complement to listing, but the description never says when to prefer this over listStayApplications or the getCoworkingApplication/getExperienceApplication variants. The pointer to listStayApplications for ID discovery lives in the schema, not the description, so routing guidance here is only inferable.

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