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 that results are public place data (coordinates, viewport, radius, address components), but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or behavior on an unresolvable id, so it only modestly exceeds 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and inputs lead and the outputs follow. Efficient and appropriately sized for the operation.

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 not be enumerated (though the description does so anyway). What is missing is guidance on the 'source' parameter and any sibling routing, leaving the agent to guess at a required input's meaning.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for three parameters. It maps loosely to 'identifier' (id) but leaves 'source' and 'language' entirely unexplained — no accepted values, format, or defaults — which is a real gap for a low-coverage schema.

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?

Specific verb 'Resolve' plus the resource 'Accor search suggestion identifier' and the outputs (coordinates, viewport, radius, address components) make the operation unambiguous. It implicitly links to the suggestion flow but never names a sibling tool, so it stops short of explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Naming a 'search suggestion identifier' as the input implies the tool should be called after accor_search_suggest, giving implied usage. However, it never states when to prefer this over accor_property or accor_search, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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