suggest_resume_search_keyword

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it adds almost nothing beyond the action and endpoint. It does not say what the tool returns, whether it is a read-only operation, how pagination or raw output behaves, or what error/edge behavior to expect, leaving the agent to infer this from the schema alone.

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 one short sentence with no filler or redundant boilerplate. The core action is front-loaded and the endpoint reference is minimal, so it earns a high conciseness score.

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 tool is simple and the schema is well documented, but there is no output schema and the description does not describe the expected response shape beyond the raw parameter's hint at compact versus raw JSON. It is minimally adequate but lacks the extra context an agent would ideally have.

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 the schema already explains both params, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no extra parameter context, which matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb, 'Autocomplete', and a specific resource, 'resume-search keywords', which makes the tool's core purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly contrast it with suggest_vacancy_search_keyword, so it stops short of a 5, but the resource qualifier already separates it from the vacancy-search sibling.

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?

'Autocomplete resume-search keywords' communicates the exact situation in which the tool is useful: when the agent needs suggested keywords for resume search. It does not list excluded cases or alternative suggestion tools, but the use context is clear enough for an agent to select it over search_resumes or suggest_vacancy_search_keyword.

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