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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the shape of the response (suggested phrase plus its own live result count and resolved URL), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about result limits or auth/rate constraints.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its output, then the use case. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description still summarizes them well. Purpose and usage are covered; only minor operational details (suggestion count, prefix semantics) are absent, so it is nearly complete for a single-parameter read tool.

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?

There is one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the input is a 'partial query', which adds semantic meaning beyond the bare string type, but gives no guidance on prefix length, matching behavior, or format.

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: typeahead suggestions for a partial query, and details what each suggestion contains (phrase, live result count, resolved Chrono24 search URL). It distinguishes itself from the sibling chrono24_search by framing it as the query-building aid for that tool.

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 closing sentence gives a clear context — building a search box against chrono24_search without guessing a full query — which tells the agent when this tool is the right choice. However, it names no explicit when-not condition or exclusion, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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