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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by disclosing that matching spans two separate amenity sources (tbStayFacilities and tbRoomFacilities), which tells the agent why some amenity hits won't appear on the stay record itself.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the matching-model detail, with no filler. Slightly more verbose than needed given the schema repeats the matchType and WiFi-speed semantics.

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?

A read-only search tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, so return-shape detail isn't required. It covers purpose, matching mode, and the optional numeric filter adequately; only minor gaps remain, such as case-sensitivity of amenity names and how limit interacts with result truncation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including matchType's enum and minWifiSpeed's Mbps unit is already documented in the schema. The description's restatement of matchType semantics adds confirmation but no new meaning, 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 ('Find all stays that have specific amenities') and immediately scopes it to both stay-level and room-level amenity sources. This clearly separates it from pure-location siblings like getStaysByLocation and the WiFi-only getStaysByWiFiSpeed, though it never names any sibling explicitly.

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?

Explains the matchType choice ('any' vs 'all') and the optional WiFi speed filter, which is real usage guidance. However it gives no when-to-use-this-vs-alternative routing, e.g. why an agent would pick this over getStaysByWiFiSpeed or getStaysByLifestyle, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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