v2auto_complete

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 'Get auto complete suggestion', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Get auto complete suggestion by term or phrase'. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's purpose, earning its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the suggestions are for (e.g., locations, properties), the return format, or error handling. For a tool with siblings that might overlap, more context is needed to ensure proper agent selection.

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 the parameter 'locationPrefix' documented as 'Example value: greenwich'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'term or phrase' which loosely relates to the parameter but doesn't clarify semantics like expected input format or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'auto complete suggestion', specifying it's based on 'term or phrase'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'agentslist' or 'propertiesv2list' by focusing on suggestions rather than listings or details. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'auto_complete_deprecated' or 'house_pricesv2auto_complete', which appear to be similar tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling 'auto_complete_deprecated' or 'house_pricesv2auto_complete', nor does it specify contexts like location-based suggestions versus other types. Usage is implied only by the parameter name 'locationPrefix', but no explicit when/when-not instructions are given.

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