accor_search_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature by stating it resolves identifiers to public place details and excludes transactional data. It does not mention rate limits, authentication, or side effects, but for a lookup tool, the transparency about scope is adequate.

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 the primary function front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description lists the return fields (description, coordinates, viewport, radius, address components) and explicitly states what is excluded, which is useful given there is no output schema. It does not cover error scenarios or detailed output formatting, but for a straightforward lookup tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema: it mentions 'anonymous' for id, but that is not materially different from 'Identifier returned by Accor search suggestions'. No extra detail is provided for source or language.

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's function: resolving an anonymous Accor search suggestion identifier to place details including coordinates, viewport, radius, and address components. It distinguishes itself from related tools by specifying its input (search suggestion identifier) and what it returns, making it 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 after obtaining a suggestion identifier from accor_search_suggest, and clarifies that booking, rates, rooms, reviews, and account data are excluded. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for those excluded data types, so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit on when not to use it.

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