hotels_autocomplete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation is anonymous (read-only) and that availability/prices are excluded, which is useful behavioral context. It doesn't mention side effects, auth, or response format, but for a simple suggestion tool this 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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the exclusions are stated efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter autocomplete tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what it does, the input type, and key exclusions. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents the parameter q as 'Partial destination or property name' with 100% coverage. The description repeats this phrasing but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'Hotels.com destination suggestions', and specifies it returns search-box suggestions for a partial destination or property name. It distinguishes from the sibling hotels_search by implying it's for suggestions, not full search results. The mention of 'anonymous' and exclusion of availability/prices clarifies 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?

The description gives clear context that this is for autocomplete-style suggestions, and notes that availability and prices are not included, implying other tools handle those. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it misses the explicit when-not/alternatives bar.

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