accor_destination_hotels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states what fields are included (code, name, source URL, broad city/country) and what is excluded (Booking, rates, rooms, reviews, contacts, precise location). It also mentions the optional theme facet. It does not discuss pagination, error behavior, or rate limits, but the static nature of the list reduces the need for such details.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently covers the scope, optional narrowing, and exclusions without waste. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 tool without an output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (each hotel's code, name, source URL, broad city/country) and what is excluded. It also notes the optional theme facet and the destination types. It lacks mention of pagination or error scenarios, but given the static list nature, this is a minor gap. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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%, meaning each parameter has a detailed description (e.g., slug required for every type except world, theme options enumerated, destination_type levels). The tool description adds some context about the 'static list' and exclusions, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Returns'), resource ('static list of hotels published on one Accor destination directory page'), and enumerates the destination levels (world, continent, country, region, department, city, district, or place). It also distinguishes this tool from sibling tools by explicitly listing exclusions (Booking, rates, rooms, reviews, contacts, precise location) and mentioning the optional theme facet, making its 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 implies usage by describing the scope: it is for a static list from a destination directory page, and the exclusions signal that it is not for booking or detailed hotel info. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like accor_search or accor_property, nor does it state when to prefer this over them. The context is clear but not explicitly directive.

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