apple_maps_autocomplete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the output types (query completions, businesses, addresses) and the resolution of businesses to the place summary with a place ID, which is useful. It does not mention pagination, error cases, or rate limits, but for a straightforward search-suggestions tool the behavioral scope is adequately covered.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states purpose and scope; the second details the output types and cross-links to other endpoints. Every clause adds information, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what is returned. It does list the three categories of results and notes the resolution to place summaries and place IDs. It does not cover pagination or metadata, but for an autocomplete tool the description is reasonably complete given the schema already documents language, span, and country parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has explicit descriptions. The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it reinforces that 'query' is partial and that latitude/longitude bias suggestions, but these are already stated in the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the description does not materially enrich the parameter understanding.

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?

States a specific action ('Get Apple Maps search suggestions') and resource ('Apple Maps typeahead'), and clarifies the scope as 'partial query near a coordinate.' It explicitly connects to sibling endpoints by noting that businesses resolve to the place summary the search endpoint returns and produce IDs the place endpoint accepts, which differentiates it from apple_maps_search and apple_maps_place without naming them.

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 this is for autocomplete/typeahead on a partial query, which is distinct from full search. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like apple_maps_search or apple_maps_places, nor does it mention any exclusions or context beyond the coordinate bias. The usage is clear but not explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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