query_suggestion_auto_completion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it reveals nothing about the tool's behavior—no information on rate limits, authentication needs, response format, error conditions, or side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, leaving critical operational traits unspecified.

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 overly concise to the point of under-specification—it's a single phrase with no structure or front-loading of key information. While brief, it fails to convey essential details, making it inefficient rather than appropriately concise. Every word should earn its place, but here the words add minimal value.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema) and the rich sibling toolset, the description is incomplete. It lacks purpose differentiation, usage guidelines, behavioral context, and output expectations, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer tool functionality. This is insufficient for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly (e.g., 'query' with an example, 'geo' with ISO codes, 'lang' for locale, 'X-CACHEBYPASS' with quota implications). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, but the high coverage justifies the baseline score of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Query Suggestion / Auto-Completion' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It indicates the general domain (query suggestions) but lacks specific verbs, resources, or scope details that would distinguish it from sibling tools like 'search' or 'resolve_url'. The purpose remains vague without concrete operational context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context, prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., how it differs from 'search' or 'resolve_url'). This leaves the agent with no basis for selecting this tool appropriately in different scenarios.

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