Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds real context beyond them: it discloses that the call is anonymous (no auth) and explicitly excludes booking and rates from the result scope. Return format is not described, but an output schema exists.

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 tight sentence with the core capability front-loaded and the exclusion clause trailing. No filler, though the scope note is compressed into the same line rather than structured.

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 simple two-parameter typeahead tool with an output schema present, the definition covers purpose, scope limits, and auth posture adequately. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both query ("at least two characters") and language documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's "partial query" and destination/hotel phrasing reinforces the query parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the 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?

The description names a specific resource (Accor destination and hotel) and a specific function (typeahead suggestions for a partial query), which clearly distinguishes it from a full search like accor_search. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling, so it isn't a 5.

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?

"For a partial query" implies the autocomplete use case, and "booking and rates excluded" scopes what it is not for. However, no alternative (e.g., accor_search or accor_search_details) is named or contrasted, leaving the routing decision implicit.

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