grailed_suggest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the output shape (flat list of suggested phrases with popularity score and live match count), explicitly excludes listing data, and specifies the empty-result behavior for unmatched queries. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but for a read-only suggestion endpoint this is adequate.

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, each carrying distinct value: purpose, return shape and usage routing, and empty-result behavior. There is no filler or repetition.

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 the single parameter, absent annotations, and absent output schema, the description compensates by specifying return fields, the no-listing-data limitation, and the empty-result case. It also provides the integration route to sibling tools. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents q as 'Partial search query' (100% coverage). The description repeats the partial-query nature and adds the downstream usage hint, but adds no additional syntax, format, or constraint info beyond the schema. 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 ('returns') and resource ('Grailed search-box typeahead suggestions'), and differentiates from the search siblings by explicitly noting 'no listing data' and that suggestions are for a partial query. An agent can clearly distinguish it from grailed_search and grailed_sold_listings.

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?

It names grailed-search and grailed-sold-listings as the downstream search tools and instructs agents to pass a suggestion straight through to their q parameter. The 'no listing data' note further clarifies when not to use it (when listing data is needed), though it doesn't enumerate alternative conditions. That is sufficient routing for a typeahead tool.

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