chewy_suggest

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 reveals response composition (search-term suggestions plus article suggestions) and that some suggestions carry a url field pointing to category/brand browse pages. This gives meaningful context beyond the tool name, though it does not detail the exact response shape or possible counts.

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?

Three sentences with no waste: front-loaded purpose, then return composition, then parameter clarification with examples. Each sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only suggest tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential points: purpose, input format, and output categories. The only minor gap is a lack of explicit return structure (e.g., array vs. object keys), but the description is adequate for correct 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?

The input schema describes the term parameter as 'Partial search text', but the tool description adds concrete examples and clarifies that the value should be a partial query rather than a full search string. This adds real semantic value beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 verb ('Returns'), resource ('Chewy's own search-box typeahead result'), and scope ('partial query term'). It clearly differentiates from sibling search tools like chewy_search and chewy_products by describing typeahead suggestions and lists two result types: search-term suggestions and educational-content articles.

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?

Provides clear context by explicitly stating the tool is for partial query terms and gives examples ('salmon dog', 'blue buff'), which implies autocomplete use. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions when not to use this tool, such as when a full search like chewy_search would be needed.

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