accor_search_suggest

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses that only public search-box suggestion source is used, and what is excluded (booking, rates, rooms, reviews, result-list requests), providing useful behavioral context. However, does not disclose potential rate limiting, authentication needs, or response format (no output schema). With no annotations, a 3 is reasonable given the partial disclosure.

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, front-loaded with purpose and scope. No redundancy, each sentence earns its place. Could be slightly more structured but is clear and efficient.

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 is adequate for a simple typeahead tool but lacks details on return format or error conditions (e.g., minimum query length is in schema but not described in prose). With no output schema and no annotations, it could provide more on response structure, but for the tool's simplicity, it is mostly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the two parameters (query, language) are already described. The description adds minimal extra meaning: implies query is partial and needs at least two characters (already in schema). It does not elaborate on language values or how match metadata is structured.

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?

States specific verb+resource (Accor destination/hotel search suggestions), explicitly lists returned data types (destination/place and hotel identifiers, types, labels, match metadata), and distinguishes from siblings like accor_search (which likely returns full search results). The description is unambiguous about its scope.

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?

Clearly describes use case: typeahead suggestions for partial queries, targeting search-box suggestions. Implicitly differentiates from accor_search and accor_search_details by excluding booking, rates, rooms, etc. However, does not explicitly state when to use this instead of accor_search or other search tools.

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