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 the output content (viewport, radius, address components) but does not disclose anything about failure modes, auth needs, or how stale an identifier may be.

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 naming the input and the returned fields, with no filler or redundancy.

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 the description need not explain return values in full, and the input schema fully documents the three parameters. It is nearly complete; the only missing piece is explicit guidance on when this resolution step should be invoked.

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 id, source and language are already documented in the schema (including the google_places/hod_hotels values). The description only loosely echoes 'suggestion identifier' and adds no new syntax or format detail.

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 ('Resolve') and resource ('Accor search suggestion identifier') and enumerates what the tool returns (coordinates, viewport, radius, address components). It is clear what the tool does; the link to the sibling accor_search_suggest is implied via 'search suggestion identifier' rather than named.

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?

Usage is implied: you must already hold an identifier produced by an Accor suggestion endpoint, so this is a follow-up resolution step. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is stated.

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