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

Annotations only mark this as not read-only, not open-world, and not destructive. The description adds crucial behavior: account stays inactive until confirmation link is clicked, returns no session/token, and the agent cannot sign in or act as the user. This is far beyond what annotations convey and matches the write operation indicated by readOnlyHint=false.

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, each earning its place: the core purpose, the inactive-until-confirmation behavior and missing session/token, and the downstream authentication path. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and stays tightly focused despite covering a multi-step workflow.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the complexity of a signup flow with email confirmation, the description is complete: it explains the result, the limitation (no session/token), and what the person must do next. It fully compensates for the lack of structured output documentation.

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?

All six parameters are fully described in the JSON schema (100% coverage), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces why email must be real and that no session is returned, but it doesn't add new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; hence baseline 3.

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?

The description opens with 'Creates a new NomadStays account on behalf of a person who does not have one yet,' using a specific verb and resource while making the scope clear. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like bookStay or getMyStays, which serve different actions.

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?

It explicitly states 'No authentication required — this is how an AI agent gets a person started,' providing direct when-to-use guidance. It also explains the post-condition (inactive until email confirmation), that no session/token is returned, and points to the future auth flow (login + request MCP bearer token or OAuth grant) as the alternative for ongoing agent access.

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