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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the auth requirement (NOMADSTAYS_MCP_AGENT_TOKEN) and the semantic meaning of the returned nextAction values, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Three sentences: verb+scope first, then the routing use-case, then the auth prerequisite. The nextAction enumeration is long but earns its place by describing the returned content. 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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so via the nextAction enumeration and applicationId reference, plus the auth note. It omits ordering/pagination details, but for a no-parameter list tool it is substantially complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There is nothing for the description to clarify; it correctly says nothing about 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') plus resource ('caller's Stay Applications') with scope ('draft and submitted') and content ('each with a nextAction hint'). The 'Stay Applications' resource naming inherently separates it from listCoworkingApplications/listExperienceApplications and from the singular getStayApplication.

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 an explicit condition: 'Call this to find an in-progress application's applicationId before resuming it.' That is clear guidance for the primary use case, but it names no alternatives (e.g. getStayApplication for a known ID) and states no when-not conditions.

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