departi_search_accommodation

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: results are curated and scored based on persona/trip type, it returns specific fields including a booking deep-link, and it returns an empty list if no inventory matches. No contradictions with annotations.

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 4-5 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and efficiently covers output, customization, usage guidance, and edge case (empty list). Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately describes the return fields. It covers the main scenarios and edge cases. However, it does not mention pagination, maximum results, or error conditions, which are minor gaps for a search tool with 10 parameters.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how persona and traveler_type influence scoring and inventory, and provides example values. It does not elaborate on every parameter, but the key ones that affect behavior are well explained.

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 uses a specific verb ("Searches") and resource ("bookable accommodation"), and clearly states the output (a ranked list with name, price, rating, etc.). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming departi_search_transport and departi_search_experiences, which handle other travel needs. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly says "Use when the user needs a place to stay" and points to alternative tools for transportation and experiences. It also provides context on how persona and traveler_type parameters bias results, giving the agent clear guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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