accor_amenities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the catalog is 'anonymous public', implying no authentication needed and a read-only nature. The mention of 'stable amenity codes' adds data-stability context. It does not describe pagination or output size, but for a reference catalog this is a minor gap. No contradiction with annotations since none exist.

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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence is a noun phrase title, and the second states the action and purpose. It is front-loaded with the core behavior ('Returns the... catalog') and includes relevant exclusions. Perfectly concise and well-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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns (catalog with codes, labels, categories, ordering), its purpose (interpreting search facets), and what it excludes (booking, rates, etc.). An agent can confidently invoke it without missing information.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage (trivially). Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adequately describes what the tool returns without needing to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 clearly states the tool returns the Accor amenity catalog with specific attributes (codes, labels, categories, display ordering). It distinguishes from sibling Accor tools by specifying it is a reference catalog, not booking or property data. The verb 'returns' and the resource 'Accor amenity catalog' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 description indicates it is 'reference data for interpreting hotel search facets', which gives a clear when-to-use context. It also explicitly excludes booking, rates, rooms, reviews, and account data, implying those belong to other tools. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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