autosuggest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the return format (list with eLoc codes) but omits behavioral traits such as rate limits, result count limits, or whether the operation is purely read-only (inferred but not stated).

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose and trigger ('as the user types'), and the second details the return value. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by mentioning 'list of matching places with their eLoc codes', but fails to specify result count, error conditions, or field structure of each place. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter descriptions. The phrasing 'as the user types' gives usage context but does not enrich parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 uniquely identifies the tool as providing autocomplete suggestions for addresses/places as the user types, returning eLoc codes. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like geocode (address to coordinates) or text_search (general place search).

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 in a typeahead context ('as the user types') but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like nearby_search or place_details, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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