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

It discloses several non-obvious behaviors: the applicant name defaults from the Nomad Stays profile, country-specific rules are validated server-side with field-specific rejections, experiences must run at least 4 days, and a token is required. It does not explicitly state the application's draft lifecycle or return value, but the mention of filling in later via saveExperienceApplication implies a draft workflow; overall this adds substantial context beyond the annotations.

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?

Four front-loaded sentences cover purpose, alternatives, prerequisites, validation rules, and auth with no filler. Each sentence earns its place, and the structure flows naturally from what the tool does to how to use it correctly.

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 28-optional-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: why to call helper tools, what server-side rules apply, how to update later, and authorization. It could further clarify the post-creation state or return shape, but the provided context is sufficient for a reasonably safe first invocation.

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?

With only 36% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the key relationships for experienceCountryId, postalCountryId, and businessModelId, including VAT/tourism number requirements. Many of the remaining 28 parameters are optional and deferred, and the description says any fields can be supplied later, reducing the risk of incorrect invocation despite incomplete per-parameter detail.

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 'Start a new Experience Application', a specific verb and resource, and immediately distinguishes this creation action from saveExperienceApplication and submitExperienceApplication. It clearly frames the tool as initiating a draft that can be completed later.

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?

The description explicitly instructs the caller to call getCountries and getBusinessModels first to resolve experienceCountryId/postalCountryId/businessModelId, and points to saveExperienceApplication for filling in fields later. It also notes server-side enforcement and the 4-day minimum, giving clear when-to-use and when-to-defer context.

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