chrono24_autocomplete

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 openly discloses the behavior: fetches typeahead suggestions for a partial query, returning phrases with live result counts and resolved search URLs. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but for a read-only fetch this is sufficient and non-misleading.

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 zero fluff. The core action is front-loaded, followed by what is returned and a practical use case. Every sentence earns its place and the structure guides the reader from action to output to context.

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?

The tool is simple: one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects. The description explains the return values (suggestions with counts and URLs) and links to the companion chrono24_search tool. It omits error cases or edge cases, but they are minor for an autocomplete tool and the description is otherwise complete.

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% since the query parameter is already described as 'Partial search text'. The description reinforces this by saying 'partial query' and 'without guessing a full query', but adds no format, examples, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'/'Fetches') and resource (Chrono24 search-box suggestions), making it clear this is an autocomplete tool. It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling chrono24_search by saying 'against chrono24-search', so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 explicitly names the alternative sibling chrono24-search and provides the condition: useful for building a search box without guessing a full query. This tells the agent when to use this tool (need suggestions) and implies when not (when a full query is already known).

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