get_suggestions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Retrieves' clearly implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, and the description conveys the basic function. However, it does not mention behavior around empty results, language fallback, ranking, or any limits, leaving a minimal but acceptable behavioral picture.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant content. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, fully documented parameters, and an output schema, the one-sentence description is largely sufficient for selecting and invoking it. The main gap is the lack of guidance distinguishing it from closely related sibling tools, but that does not severely impair basic usage.

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 both 'keyword' and 'language' already documented in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Retrieves') and a specific resource ('autocomplete suggestions for a search term'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as get_related_queries or get_trending_terms, but the autocomplete framing is distinctive enough to separate it from most siblings.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, nor does it offer any exclusions or alternative recommendations. The agent must infer usage context from the name and schema alone.

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