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 genuine value by enumerating the field categories deliberately omitted from the response, which is behavioral context the annotations cannot convey.

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?

One dense sentence with the positive scope front-loaded and the negative scope trailing. Zero filler, no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 an output schema present, return-value detail is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description's inclusion of the exclusion list gives an agent enough to call this correctly; the only minor gap is not naming the sibling to use for excluded data.

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% and the schema documents the single hotel_code parameter (four-character Accor code). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 for schema-driven documentation is appropriate.

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 resource (one Accor hotel code) and precise scope ('static public metadata'), then explicitly delineates what it does not cover. An agent can distinguish this from the many accor_* siblings (accor_amenities, accor_catalog_hotels, accor_search) without opening any schema.

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 (booking, rates, rooms, reviews, contacts, precise location) effectively signals when NOT to use this tool and routes the agent toward more specific siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings directly, so it is clear context rather than an explicit when/when-not/alternative instruction.

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