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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by disclosing an authorization requirement (NOMADSTAYS_MCP_AGENT_TOKEN) that is not in annotations. It also adds domain context by referencing the target field. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the action, scope, and authorization requirement without redundant repetition.

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 simple no-parameter, read-only option-list tool, the description is complete. It states the output (valid values), domain context (Main Accommodation Type), and a special requirement (token). No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently informs an agent about expected behavior.

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 the baseline is 4. The description adds semantic value by explicitly identifying the data scope (Main Accommodation Type) and the related field (stayTypeId), clarifying what the tool operates on beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('valid values for a Stay's 'Main Accommodation Type''). It also distinguishes itself from sibling option-getter tools by referencing the exact field (stayTypeId) and its usage in updateStayOrganisationalData.

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 provides clear context by linking the tool to a specific field in updateStayOrganisationalData, implying when it should be used. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent to select it correctly among similar option-listing tools.

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