Burberry's own search-box suggestions (typeahead) for a partial query: suggested search phrases, each with its own live result count on the search index. Not product data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Partial search query |
| 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.
Input schema / properties / query / descriptionAdded value: +"Partial search query"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. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that each suggestion carries 'its own live result count on the search index,' which is a non-obvious behavioral trait, and explicitly rules out product data.
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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose (typeahead suggestions for a partial query), then adds the result-count detail and the scope exclusion. No waste.
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 description is complete enough for an agent to call this correctly: it identifies the input as a partial query, the output as suggested phrases with result counts, and excludes product data. An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. The only minor gap is that the result-count insight could be slightly more explicit, but the description is well-sized for a 1-param 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'query' is already documented as 'Partial search query' in the schema. The description echoes the partial-query notion but adds no syntax, format, or length guidance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('search-box suggestions (typeahead) for a partial query'), names the brand, and explicitly distinguishes from product data with 'Not product data.' An agent can tell this apart from burberry_search or burberry_product without opening a 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?
The description implies usage (typeahead for a partial query) but does not state when to use this tool versus burberry_search or burberry_related. No explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives are provided.
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.