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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-call profile is covered. The description's one added behavioral fact is the cost ("1 credit"), which is genuinely useful and not in the structured fields, but nothing is said about rate limits or return format.

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 fragments, front-loaded with the core purpose and cost, with zero filler. Terseness is fine given the tool's simplicity, though the second fragment is unconnected jargon.

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 output schema, the description should convey what the suggestions list looks like and how country/language affect results; it does neither. For a tool with three parameters and zero schema documentation, this is thin.

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 0% across three parameters, and the description adds nothing about query length limits, the country/language defaults ("us"/"en"), or their format. It only loosely gestures at the query parameter via "partial query", leaving country and language undocumented anywhere.

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 a specific resource (Google search suggestions) and the input condition (a partial query), which distinguishes it from the sibling google_search. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

"For a partial query" implies the input shape but gives no when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no mention of when to prefer google_search instead, and no prerequisites. An agent must infer the routing decision entirely.

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