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 useful scope context ('public hotel index', 'static hotel facets', excluded data domains), but says nothing about pagination, result format, or rate limits beyond what annotations provide.

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 efficient sentence with the core verb and scope front-loaded; no filler. It is arguably too terse for an 8-parameter tool, but nothing is wasted.

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 need no explanation, but for a tool with 8 undocumented parameters (0% coverage) the description leaves too much unstated about how query, page, limit, and language behave.

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 8 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden. It gestures at 'destination' and 'static hotel facets' (roughly city/country/brand/stars), but never addresses query, page, limit, or language, so most parameters remain undocumented.

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+resource ('Search Accor's public hotel index') and scopes it with 'optional destination and static hotel facets.' It doesn't explicitly name which sibling (accor_search_details, accor_search_suggest, accor_destination_hotels) to use instead, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 clause ('booking, rates, rooms, and reviews excluded') implies when this tool is appropriate versus a rates/booking tool, but no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-to-use condition.

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