hm_search_suggestions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so exceptionally well. It discloses the credential-free backend, the behavior difference between query and no-query modes, the emptiness of phrase/content results in trending mode, and the non-session-scoped nature of search_history, which is far beyond a basic tool summary.

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 information-dense sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, the mode distinction follows immediately, and the search_history caveat is an earned inclusion that prevents a likely agent misunderstanding.

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-optional-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers all critical contexts: source, mode behavior, what is returned in each mode, and the misleading nature of one field. There is no meaningful gap that would prevent correct invocation or interpretation.

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 the query parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful interpretation beyond the schema by explaining that query yields spelling-complete phrases and merchandised content, while omitting/empty yields trending searches and popular shortcuts, giving the agent more semantic grounding for the parameter.

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 a precise verb and resource: 'Get H&M search-box suggestions,' immediately distinguishing this from related tools like hm_search and hm_listing by naming the specific feature (typeahead suggestions) and upstream source. It also explains two distinct output modes depending on whether query is provided, which fully clarifies what the tool does.

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 clearly defines when to use it: provide a query for phrase/merchandised suggestions, omit it for trending/popular searches. While it references hm-listing/hm-search as sharing a backend, it does not explicitly state when to choose those tools instead, leaving that inference to the agent.

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