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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable scoping context ('public hotel index', excludes booking/rates/rooms/reviews), but says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or indexing lag. Adequate but not rich given annotations carry the safety profile.

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 with zero waste. The core purpose leads and the exclusion scope follows compactly.

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 100% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description doesn't need to document parameters or returns. It adequately defines scope and exclusions, though it omits guidance on sibling routing for the seven other accor_* tools.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description loosely references 'destination and static hotel facets', grouping city/brand/stars/country conceptually, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 (search) and resource (Accor's public hotel index) and clarifies the scope with exclusions. It partially distinguishes from siblings by excluding booking/rates/rooms/reviews, but does not name the sibling alternatives it is contrasted with (e.g. accor_search_details, accor_destination_hotels).

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 'booking, rates, rooms, and reviews excluded' clause implies when this tool is not appropriate, giving useful scope context. However, it never states when to prefer this over accor_search_suggest, accor_destination_hotels, or accor_catalog_hotels, leaving sibling routing to inference.

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