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

The description adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it is free of credit charges, authenticated, rate-limited even with zero credits, returns only labels and opaque IDs, and does not return coordinates or bounding boxes. It also clarifies that a follow-up /v1/retrieve call costs one credit. These details materially help an agent understand cost, authentication, output shape, and rate-limit behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and remains readable. It is slightly repetitive about credit usage and rate limits across separate sentences, but the repetition does not obscure the key information.

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 an autocomplete tool with rich annotations, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the important missing context: return shape, credit cost, authentication, rate limits, and the follow-up retrieval workflow. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 high at 80%, so the schema already documents most parameter meaning. The description reinforces country filtering, position bias, and landmark inclusion, but it does not add notable semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining the limit parameter or focus.scaleKm behavior.

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 states a specific verb and resource: completing an address or place prefix while the last word is unfinished. It also distinguishes the tool from the retrieval step by explaining that the returned IDs must be passed to /v1/retrieve for coordinates. This makes the tool's role clear without opening the 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?

It clearly explains the primary use case and names /v1/retrieve as the follow-up tool for getting location details. It also mentions filtering by country, biasing by position, and including landmarks. However, it does not explicitly compare against other siblings such as search or reverse, so it stops short of complete when-to-use guidance.

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