quince_suggest

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does so well. It specifies the response shape (flat list of suggested search phrases, no product data) and error behavior (well-formed empty result rather than an error for no genuine matches). The only minor gap is lack of details about pagination or result limits, but for a simple typeahead tool this is 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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds distinct information: what is returned, what is not returned, how to chain to product search, and error behavior. It earns its length, though a tiny amount of redundancy exists between the first and second sentences about returning suggestions.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output shape, chaining, and error behavior. The only missing context is any mention of rate limits, required auth, or whether input should be normalized, but those are optional for a simple suggest endpoint. Overall, an agent can both select and invoke this tool correctly with high confidence.

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% and the only parameter 'q' is already described as 'Search query prefix'. The description confirms it is a partial query for typeahead, but that's a minor reinforcement of the existing schema. The description's value here is mainly in explaining how to chain the returned suggestion into quince-search, not in adding new parameter syntax semantics.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('Quince search suggestions'), and precisely distinguishes its output (typeahead suggestions, not product data) from downstream product search. It names the consumption path: pass the suggestion to quince-search's q parameter. This clearly differentiates quince_suggest from quince_search and other suggest tools in the sibling list.

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 explicitly tells an agent when to use this tool: to retrieve Quince search-box typeahead suggestions for a partial query. It also explains the alternative: for product results, pass the suggestion to quince-search's q parameter. This is direct routing guidance between two closely related siblings, with no ambiguity about which tool produces product data.

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