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 only that the codes are 'public', hinting at no auth requirement, but says nothing about caching, pagination, or refresh cadence for what is effectively a static reference list. Adequate but not rich given the low bar set by 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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the tool's own scope front-loaded before the routing guidance. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a parameterless read-only reference list with an output schema and safety annotations already present, the description covers purpose, scope, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs in order to select or call it is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description's enumeration of returned fields (codes, labels, categories, display order) describes output rather than input, which the output schema already covers.

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 ('List') and resource (Accor's public amenity codes, labels, categories, display order), which is a precise description of a reference-catalog lookup. It also names the sibling tools it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from accor_property and accor_brands without inspecting schemas.

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 routes the agent: 'Use accor_property for a hotel's amenities or accor_brands to browse Accor brands.' This gives both the alternative tools and the condition that selects them, leaving nothing to inference.

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