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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: 'static public metadata' signals the response is non-volatile/cacheable and public, and the exclusion list sets expectations about what the payload will NOT contain. Solid added value without contradicting 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource first, then the exclusions. No filler. Trivially short given the tool's simplicity, which is appropriate.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover safety. For a one-parameter read tool, the description gives enough scope and boundary information to call it correctly; only the parameter format is left unspecified.

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?

One parameter (hotel_code) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It only implies the parameter is an 'Accor hotel code' — no format, length, or example (e.g., 'B2M9' style codes) is given. Marginal compensation for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific resource ('Accor hotel code') and the precise nature of the data ('static public metadata'), and lists the excluded content domains (booking, rates, rooms, reviews, contacts, location). This differentiates it from sibling tools like accor_search and accor_catalog_hotels without opening schemas. It lacks an explicit verb, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 exclusion list implicitly signals when not to use this tool (for booking, rates, reviews, etc.), but no alternative sibling is named — the agent must infer that hotels_reviews or accor_search should be used instead. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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