autocomplete_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only search, but says nothing about matching semantics (prefix vs substring vs fuzzy), ordering, or what a suggestion contains (id/label/pk?), all of which matter for FK/M2M widget use.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no redundant or filler text. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 simple 2-param read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and rough use case but leaves the return shape and match behavior undefined. Adequate but with a clear gap for an autocomplete tool whose output format is the whole point.

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% with only 2 params, so the schema already documents both `term` and `limit` fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching guidance beyond that, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 (search) and resource (Article instances) plus the intent — autocomplete suggestions. It's clearly distinguishable from sibling entity autocompletes by name, but it doesn't differentiate itself from list_article or find_models, which also return collections.

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?

"Useful for populating FK/M2M field widgets" gives an implied usage context, but never states when to choose this over list_article or find_models, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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