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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral details beyond that: it returns up to 10 suggestions, matches partial input, and produces values suitable for a specific sibling parameter. This is useful context, though it does not reveal ordering, matching rules, or empty-result 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core behavior and result limit are front-loaded, and the downstream usage note is concise and actionable.

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 one-parameter autocomplete tool with strong safety annotations and no output schema, the description provides the essential return-value information (up to 10 suggestions) and integration guidance. It is nearly complete; minor details like whether suggestions are full names or formatted strings could be added, but nothing critical is missing.

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?

The schema already documents the only parameter 'text' as 'Partial company name' with 100% coverage. The description reinforces the partial-input concept but adds little meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific action ('auto-complete company names') and resource ('company names'), and specifies the output behavior (up to 10 suggestions matching partial input). It also distinguishes itself by pointing to its intended downstream consumer, cfpb_search_complaints, so an agent can tell it apart from complaint-search siblings.

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 description gives explicit context: use this tool to generate exact values for cfpb_search_complaints' company parameter. This effectively tells the agent when and why to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative suggestion/fuzzy-match tools.

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