Autocomplete suggestions for cities or categories/business names. Use before searching to resolve ambiguous user input (e.g. "Mün" → "München").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | "city" for city name suggestions, "query" for category and business name suggestions | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of suggestions (1-15, default 10) | |
| query | Yes | Search text (minimum 2 characters) | |
| country | No | ISO country code to filter city suggestions by country |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the behavioral context of resolving ambiguous input, but does not disclose extra traits like rate limits or response format—though the bar is lowered by the 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?
Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose and resource; the second provides a concrete usage guideline and example. Everything 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 simple read-only autocomplete tool, the combination of a clear description, comprehensive schema, and safety annotations is sufficient. No output schema exists, but none is needed for a tool of this simplicity. One might expect a note on response format, but it is not required.
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?
All 4 parameters are fully described in the input schema (coverage 100%), so the description does not need to repeat them. The example illustrates the query parameter but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 ('Autocomplete') and defines the exact resource ('cities or categories/business names'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_businesses' by focusing on suggestion-style disambiguation, reinforced by the example 'Mün' → 'München'.
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 phrase 'Use before searching' explicitly tells when to use the tool, positioning it as a precursor to searching. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, but the intended use case is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_business retrieves full details, get_rankings returns popularity rankings, search_businesses performs filtered searches, suggest provides autocomplete, list_categories and list_countries enumerate valid options, health_check checks API status, and send_feedback reports issues. No overlap or ambiguity.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_business, get_rankings, list_categories, list_countries, search_businesses, send_feedback). However, 'health_check' is a noun phrase and 'suggest' is a lone verb without an object, introducing minor inconsistency.
With 8 tools covering search, details, rankings, autocomplete, enumeration, health check, and feedback, the count is well-matched to the directory's scope. Each tool earns its place without redundancy.
The tool set provides a complete workflow for discovering and retrieving business information: list available categories/countries, autocomplete input, search, get rankings, fetch full details, and report issues. No critical gaps are apparent for a read-only directory.