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 one useful behavioral fact—that the id is matched against two internal fields—but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or what happens when no match is found.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The second sentence slightly overlaps the parameter schema description rather than adding fully new information, keeping it just under a 5.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It could note what happens on a missing record, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by noting the id also matches StayId in addition to EntryId, which is meaningful semantics for the parameter (though it is mildly inconsistent with the schema's own 'searches the EntryId field' text).

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: 'Returns full details for a single stay.' An agent understands the operation clearly. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like getMyStayDetail or getStaysBy* lookups, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many siblings (getMyStayDetail, getStaysByCountry, etc.). Usage is only implied by the name and verb.

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