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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does convey useful context that this is a secondary/debug-only endpoint rather than the production search path, but it says nothing about return shape (a suggestion list), failure modes, or whether it is a read-only lookup.

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 short clauses with no filler, and the usage directive is placed immediately after the identification. The parenthetical "(step 37)" is the only dead weight and actively obscures rather than clarifies.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only place an agent can learn what comes back, and it never says. For a suggest/autocomplete tool, the return value (a ranked list of suggestions?) is the core thing an agent needs before deciding to call it instead of the combined search pipeline.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters fully documented in-schema, including the example formatting for `step_37_url_query_term` and the constraint that `notification_message` be plain text. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Jiji suggest only (step 37)" identifies the resource area (Jiji's suggest endpoint) and scopes it as suggest-only, but there is no verb and no statement of what a "suggest" call actually does or returns (autocomplete? query expansion?). The "(step 37)" fragment is opaque internal jargon that adds no meaning for an agent choosing a tool.

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?

"Prefer the combined search pipeline unless debugging" gives an explicit when-not-to-use rule and points to the alternative category, which is unusually strong guidance for a tool definition. It stops short of naming the exact sibling tool (e.g. `search`), so the agent must map "combined search pipeline" to a name itself.

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