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

Annotations only mark this as non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world; the description goes well beyond by disclosing concrete failure modes (missingFields list, 409 on unpaid fee), the absence of partial submission, the terminal success state, and the required NOMADSTAYS_MCP_AGENT_TOKEN. This is rich operational context an agent needs before calling.

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 action, then immediately the failure modes and the prerequisite. Every sentence adds decision-relevant information (error behavior, prerequisite call, terminal state, auth token) with no repetition or 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return/outcome burden and does so: success moves the application to human review and requires nothing further, failures surface as missingFields or a 409. Auth requirement is also covered, so nothing needed to invoke 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 coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter (applicationId), so the schema already carries the burden. The description mentions applicationId only in the context of the purchaseProduct prerequisite, not as added semantics for the parameter itself, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (Submit) and resource (Stay Application) and clarifies that this is a completed-application handoff, not a draft save — distinguishing it from the sibling saveStayApplication. The terminal effect (moves to human review) is stated explicitly.

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 states the preconditions clearly (all required fields must be filled, Application Fee must be paid/waived) and even routes the agent to the specific alternative — call purchaseProduct with productId 8 and applicationId first. No partial/optimistic submission is allowed, which removes ambiguity about sequencing.

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