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 an auth prerequisite (NOMADSTAYS_MCP_AGENT_TOKEN) that annotations do not express, which is genuinely useful; it stops short of describing the returned value shape.

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?

A single sentence with the output meaning front-loaded, followed by the auth requirement. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 zero-param lookup an agent mainly needs to know what the list is for, which the description supplies by naming the target parameter. It does not describe the option payload (e.g. id/label pairs) and there is no output schema, a minor gap for an option-listing 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly redirects the agent to where these values are consumed rather than describing non-existent inputs.

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 ('List valid values for a Stay's Main Accommodation Type') and explicitly ties the output to the consuming parameter (stayTypeId in updateStayOrganisationalData). This lets an agent distinguish it from the many other *Options siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Implies the usage context by naming updateStayOrganisationalData as the consumer, so an agent knows to call this before setting stayTypeId. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison against other option tools (e.g. getRoomTypeOptions), but the intended context is clear.

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