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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, no open-world), so the description spends its budget on what annotations can't convey: matching semantics (prefix, or word-prefix for business records), a hard cap of 8 results, ordering ("best first"), and the payload of each suggestion (page URL plus photo/logo when present). It does not cover degenerate cases such as zero matches or partial-match fallbacks, which keeps it below a 5.

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, front-loaded with the core behavior and closed with the sibling routing advice. The entity-type enumeration is long but functional; every remaining clause carries result-shape information the agent cannot get elsewhere.

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 only two parameters, no output schema, and annotations already declaring the read-only profile, the description supplies the missing pieces: result cardinality, ordering, and per-suggestion fields. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret what comes back.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining what q actually matches against (name prefixes and word-initial matches for business records), semantics the schema's "text typed so far" phrasing only loosely implies. The limit cap of 8 is restated from the schema, adding no new value.

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 verb and resource – completing a partial name as a person types – and enumerates the entity classes it covers (places, neighborhoods, categories, collections, roles, business records). This is clearly a typeahead tool, distinguishable from the sibling 'search' without inspecting any schema.

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?

Explicitly sets the use case ("as the person types" – prefix autocomplete) and names the alternative: "For a full ranked search with filters, call search." The routing condition between the two tools is unambiguous.

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