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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results are limited to 'listed and not suspended' stays, but says nothing about return shape or pagination behavior.

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 no filler, and the scope qualifier ('listed and not suspended') is included efficiently. It is appropriately sized, though it is terse enough that a little more routing context could have been added without bloat.

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-required-parameter, read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential scope. The main gap is the absence of guidance on what the results contain or how many, though the limit parameter gestures at result sizing.

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 both parameters are fully documented by the schema; the description's mention of '10Mbps' merely restates the schema's default for minWiFiDownloadSpeed. It adds no syntax or format detail beyond structured data, making the 3 baseline correct.

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 (Find) and resource (stays) with an explicit filter criterion (WiFi download speed greater than 10Mbps), which clearly separates it from siblings like getStaysByAmenities or getStaysByBudget. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls 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?

Usage is implied by the filter semantics — an agent can infer it is for speed-based stay discovery — but the description never states when to prefer this over getStaysByAmenities, getStaysByBudget, or getStaysByLocation, nor any exclusions.

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