goldin_suggest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals the fallback behavior when keyword is omitted, and it notes that results match the site's own typeahead. However, it does not describe the response format, whether results are plain strings or structured objects, or any rate-limit/auth considerations. For a simple suggestions tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The first sentence states the purpose, and the third adds important optionality behavior. The second sentence is slightly redundant with the first ('search-suggestions/autocomplete' repeats 'search suggestions'), but it reinforces the typeahead context. Overall, it is appropriately sized with minimal waste.

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 low complexity (2 optional params, no enums, no nested objects) and complete schema documentation, the description covers the key behavioral twist (keyword omission). However, there is no output schema, so the description should arguably explain what the returned suggestions look like. It only mentions 'trending/popular searches' in the omitted case and never describes the shape of keyword-based results, leaving a minor but real gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining that keyword is optional and that omitting it yields trending/popular searches rather than an error. This is genuinely useful information not present in the input schema. It does not add anything about limit, but the schema already documents its default and cap.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get Goldin's search suggestions for a keyword.' It also clarifies the behavior as 'search-suggestions/autocomplete' and 'matching the site's own search box typeahead,' which implicitly distinguishes it from full-text search tools like goldin_search. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast itself against them, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives clear context that this is typeahead/autocomplete, so an agent can infer when to use it. It also provides one concrete usage condition: 'keyword is optional -- when omitted, returns Goldin's current trending/popular searches instead of an error.' However, it never explicitly states when NOT to use it or which alternative to use instead (e.g., goldin_search for full search results), leaving the alternative-selection decision mostly implied.

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