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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only say not read-only, not destructive, closed-world). The description discloses concrete error behavior (missingFields list, 409 on unpaid fee), the absence of partial submissions, the post-success transition to human review, and the required NOMADSTAYS_MCP_AGENT_TOKEN.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome, then prerequisites, then error modes and auth. Nothing is redundant and each clause carries operative information.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers success state, both failure modes, the required prior call with its exact productId, and the auth token requirement. 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single applicationId parameter, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description references applicationId only in the context of the purchaseProduct prerequisite and adds no format or constraint detail beyond it — the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Submit') and resource ('Experience Application') plus the terminal state ('human review'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling saveExperienceApplication. An agent can tell this is the finalization step, not a draft save, without opening the schema.

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 explicit preconditions and failure routing: pay/waive the fee first via purchaseProduct with productId 9 and warns specifically against product 8. It also states there is no partial or optimistic submission, so the agent knows exactly when this call is valid and what to do if it errors.

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