get_search_suggestions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response returns 'a set of the most prominent' matches, which adds useful context about result filtering. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format (e.g., pagination, structure). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient for full behavioral understanding.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the first sentence could be more direct (e.g., 'Retrieve search suggestions for coinranking data'). The misleading parameter count slightly reduces efficiency.

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 and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and result context but lacks completeness. It covers what the tool does and the type of data returned, but misses details like authentication needs, rate limits, and full behavioral traits. For a search tool with two parameters, this is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 both parameters (referenceCurrencyUuid and query). The description adds that 'the endpoint only accepts one parameter; a query', which is misleading as the schema shows two parameters. It also explains the query searches by symbol or name, adding some semantics beyond the schema's 'Value to search on'. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'find data on coinranking' via search suggestions, specifying it searches for currencies, exchanges, and markets by symbol or name. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on search functionality rather than specific data retrieval (e.g., get_coin, get_exchanges). However, it could be more specific about the verb (e.g., 'retrieve' or 'fetch' suggestions).

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 mentions searching for currencies, exchanges, and markets, but does not compare to sibling tools like get_coins or get_exchanges, which might retrieve similar data without search. There is no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool naming.

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