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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that - no note on suggestion scope, hit limits, or what the suggestions represent (place names, postcodes, regions).

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 short, front-loaded fragment with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being lean through good editing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema. What is missing is the operational context - how this autocomplete relates to rightmove_search - leaving the definition minimally viable.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the query and limit parameters including the 200-character cap and clamping to 20. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource and function ('Rightmove location autocomplete suggestions'), clarifying the tool is about locations rather than properties or agents. However, it largely restates the tool name and gives no differentiation from siblings like rightmove_search, which also deals with Rightmove locations.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this typeahead versus rightmove_search or the other Rightmove search tools. The agent is left to infer that this is a query-assist endpoint from the word 'autocomplete' alone.

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