Gucci's own search-box typeahead suggestions for a partial query, each with its own live total result count. Not product data -- pass a suggestion's own query value into gucci_search for results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds that each suggestion carries its own 'live total result count,' which is useful behavioral context about the payload's liveness that annotations do not convey. It stops short of pagination or rate-limit detail.
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 core behavior and followed by the disambiguation/handoff. Zero 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?
With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Purpose and routing are complete for a simple 2-param lookup; the only gap is the undocumented limit parameter.
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 0% for 2 parameters. The phrase 'partial query' implicitly characterizes q, but the limit parameter is never mentioned anywhere, so the description does not compensate for the documentation gap.
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 explicitly distinguishes itself from gucci_search by declaring it is 'Not product data.' An agent can select it correctly without opening 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?
Explicit routing: use this for suggestions on a partial query, then 'pass a suggestion's own query value into gucci_search for results.' It names the alternative and the exact handoff condition, leaving nothing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
