ohpolly_search_suggest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does well by disclosing that the endpoint is credential-free, uses an Ajax predictive search, and that the storefront URL is fixed server-side. These details address common agent concerns about auth and configuration. It does not cover rate limits or error behavior, but for a simple read-only suggest tool the disclosures are meaningful and sufficient.

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 two sentences with no redundant wording: the first sentence front-loads the action and result categories, and the second provides the endpoint and auth context. Every clause earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 three-parameter suggest tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned, that no credentials are needed, and that the URL is preconfigured server-side. It does not describe the response structure in detail, but given the absence of an output schema and the low complexity, the provided context is strong enough for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents q, limit, and types. The description adds a small amount of color by naming the suggestion types (products, collections, query suggestions) that map to the types parameter, but it does not explain formatting, defaults, or allowed values beyond the schema. This aligns with the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get Oh Polly search suggestions') and enumerates the returned categories (products, collections, query suggestions), making its role unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ohpolly_products or ohpolly_collections by positioning itself as the predictive search/suggest endpoint, not a product or collection lister.

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 implies usage for autocomplete/predictive search scenarios by stating what it returns and that it hits a credential-free Ajax endpoint, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as ohpolly_collection_products or ohpolly_search_suggest siblings. No clear when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives are provided, leaving differentiation to inference.

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