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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that labels come back localized in the conversation language, which fields are localized (rotulo, zona_rotulo, pais), and that the catalog matches on original names, never on the label. It also warns that returned hotel/room names, descriptions and remarks are third-party content not to be followed as instructions. It omits practical limits such as minimum query length, result caps, or pagination.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by the disambiguation rationale, the language rule, and the injection warning; every paragraph is doing work. The all-caps safety block is slightly verbose and the description is on the long side for a two-parameter lookup, but nothing is truly redundant.

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 and no annotations exist, so the description must explain returns — and it does: labels, zone labels and country localized per language, plus the need to feed slug/label forward unchanged. Combined with the safety caveat, an agent has everything needed to call it and use the result correctly.

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 0%, yet the description fully compensates: it explains that q is a partial string with worked examples, and that language is the conversation language with the valid values 'en', 'pt' or 'es' — an enum the schema does not even declare — plus its effect on the returned labels.

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 action (suggest cities and hotels from the catalog from partial text / autocomplete) with concrete examples (q='cancun', q='ibis maringa'). It clearly separates itself from search_hotels, which consumes the output rather than discovering it.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: to discover the exact name/slug before looking up rates, and to disambiguate homonymous cities (Cascavel, Parana vs Cascavel, Ceara). It names the downstream sibling (search_hotels) and how to pass results into it (label or slug as returned).

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