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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the draft/submitted states returned, the four possible nextAction values, the absence of a pay_application_fee step, and the required NOMADSTAYS_MCP_AGENT_TOKEN auth.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return shape, then the usage rule, then the auth requirement. The fee-comparison sentence is slightly tangential but still earns its place by preempting a wrong assumption about a payment step.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description describes what is returned (applications with a nextAction hint and its enumerated values) and the auth prerequisite. For a no-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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; baseline 4 applies. No misuse risk from undocumented 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 (List) and resource (caller's Coworking Applications), and scopes it to draft and submitted states with the returned nextAction hint enumerated. It is readily distinguishable from getCoworkingApplication (singular fetch) and the listExperience/StayApplications siblings.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use rule: call this to find an in-progress application's applicationId before resuming it. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the retrieval-before-resume framing provides clear context.

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