gucci_suggest

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole transparency source. It discloses that suggestions have a 'live total result count on the search index' and that they are 'not product data,' providing useful behavioral context. It does not cover rate limits or auth, but for a suggest endpoint the essential behavior is captured.

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 just two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and each clause is informative: what it returns, the live-count detail, the 'not product data' caveat, and the routing to gucci-search. No filler words.

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 simple 2-parameter suggest tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description covers the key facts: the return contains suggestion queries and counts, it is not product data, and the suggestion query should be passed to gucci-search. A more detailed response shape would be nice, but the information is sufficient 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 already describes both parameters fully ('Partial search query' for q, and limit with default/max). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Gucci search-box suggestions' and clearly states what the tool returns: typeahead suggestions with live result counts. It also differentiates from gucci-search by saying 'Not product data' and directing the suggestion's query value to gucci-search, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance: it states this tool is for search-box suggestions, declares that the output is not product data, and instructs the agent to pass a suggestion's query value into gucci-search for actual product results. This effectively names the alternative tool and the condition that points to it.

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