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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-facing nature are covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: each suggestion includes a live result count on the search index, which tells the agent what to expect in the response. It does not cover rate limits or pagination, but for a typeahead tool this is adequate.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states what the tool does, what it returns, and what it is not. Every phrase earns its place; no wasted words.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the description needn't explain return values; it focuses on the core function and distinguishes from product search. Annotations cover safety. For a simple typeahead endpoint, this is complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It refers to 'a partial query' but doesn't name or elaborate on the single input parameter beyond that. The schema has one required string parameter with no description, and the description adds only marginal meaning: it says the query is partial, which is useful but minimal. Baseline 3 is appropriate for a one-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage where the description provides some semantic context.

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+resource ('search-box suggestions (typeahead) for a partial query') and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling burberry_search by clarifying that results are suggested phrases, not product data. An agent can tell this apart from other Burberry tools immediately.

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 clearly implies the use case: feeding a partial query to get typeahead suggestions. It also sets expectations by stating 'Not product data', which helps an agent avoid using this for product results. It does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., burberry_search) or state when not to use it, but it is clear enough for correct invocation.

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