macys_suggest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and does valuable work: it discloses the output shape (flat list of phrases), bounds the result ('no product data'), and pre-empts a common failure interpretation by stating unmatched partial queries return a normal empty result rather than an error. It stops short of richer context like rate limits, result count, or auth requirements, so a perfect score isn't warranted.

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 tightly written sentences, each earning its place: purpose, output shape and boundary, then a valuable edge-case note. No fluff, no repetition, and the key scoping terms ('partial query', 'flat list', 'no product data') are front-loaded into the first sentence.

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-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it states what is returned, what is NOT returned, and how the tool behaves in the edge case of no matches. The only minor addition would be a concrete example of input/output, which isn't necessary for this simple tool.

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% – the 'query' parameter is documented with the type string and description 'Partial search query', so the baseline is 3. The tool description reinforces that the query is partial/typeahead input but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already communicates.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get Macy's search-box suggestions'), and specifies the exact scope: typeahead suggestions for a partial query, returned as a flat list of phrases. The explicit statement 'no product data' distinguishes it from sibling product tools like macys_product and other retailers' suggest tools.

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?

Clear usage context: this is for partial-query typeahead suggestions, not for retrieving product details, and the 'no product data' note implies it should not be chosen when product data is required. It gives a natural condition for selection (partial query) and even describes expected behavior for unmatched queries, though it names no explicit alternative.

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