accor_search

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 usefully states what results contain (static identity, location labels, ratings, source URLs) and explicitly excludes booking, rates, rooms, reviews, loyalty, and payment flows, which helps set expectations. It does not mention pagination behavior or rate limits, but for a search endpoint the scope and return contents are well covered.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, and the action and resource are front-loaded. The description efficiently conveys scope, filters, and result exclusion in a compact form.

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?

Given the moderate complexity of an 8-parameter search tool and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is searched, what filters are available, and what types of data are returned or excluded. It does not document defaults or pagination details, but those are largely covered by the input schema and are not critical for correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents all eight parameters. The description adds only generic mention of the filter categories already listed in the schema, without further clarifying values like brand codes, zero-based pages, or locale formats. This meets the baseline but adds little beyond the structured definitions.

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 clear verb ('Search'), resource ('Accor hotels'), and the search dimensions ('destination or hotel name'). It also lists supported filters, making the tool's purpose specific and understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like accor_catalog_hotels or accor_destination_hotels, so it misses the full differentiation credit.

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 when to use the tool: when searching the public Accor hotel index by destination or hotel name with optional facets. However, it does not mention any sibling tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer the choice among the many accor_* siblings.

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