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-data nature are covered. The description adds the qualifiers 'current' and 'public', signalling live, unauthenticated data, but says nothing about rate limits, result counts, or freshness beyond that.

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?

One sentence, no filler, and the resource is front-loaded before the input qualifier. Nothing in it is redundant with the title or schema.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only lookup with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering returns, the description supplies what an agent needs to call it. The only missing piece is how it relates to the sibling search tools, which keeps it short of a 5.

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% and already documents Query as a partial keyword up to 100 characters. The description's 'partial keyword' phrasing reinforces the schema but adds no new format or constraint detail, so the baseline 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?

States a specific resource (Tokopedia product-search suggestions) and the input that produces them (a partial keyword), so the verb+resource picture is clear. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with the nearby tokopedia_search / tokopedia_search_filters siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction from the word 'suggestions'.

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?

'for a partial keyword' implies this is the typeahead-style tool to use while a query is incomplete, which is useful implicit guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to tokopedia_search for full queries, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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