rothys_search_suggest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context beyond the schema: the endpoint is credential-free, it is a predictive-search Ajax endpoint, and the storefront URL is fixed server-side so no URL configuration is needed. However, it does not disclose response format details, empty-result behavior, error modes, or rate limits, leaving the behavioral picture only partially complete.

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 terse sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: what it returns, the credential-free endpoint nature, and the server-side fixed URL. The embedded rothys.com URL is slightly redundant but confirms the target site; otherwise there is zero fluff.

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 low-complexity tool (3 parameters, only q required, 100% schema coverage), the description plus schema is nearly sufficient: an agent knows what it returns, that no credentials are needed, and that the target URL is handled server-side. The only gaps are minor — no response shape detail (mitigated by the high-level return-type statement) and no explicit sibling differentiation — which carry low stakes for a suggest endpoint.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents all three parameters well, including the default (10) and max (20) for limit and allowed values for types. The description's listing of 'products, collections, and query suggestions' echoes the types parameter's allowed values, providing a mild cross-reference, but it adds no substantive parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 a specific verb+resource ('Get Rothy's search suggestions') and immediately enumerates the three output categories: products, collections, and query suggestions. The brand scoping (Rothy's) plus the return-type list distinguishes it from other brands' suggest tools and from rothys_products/rothys_product fetching 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 phrase 'credential-free predictive search Ajax endpoint' implies the usage context: lightweight autocomplete-style lookups with no auth setup. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives (e.g., use rothys_products for full product detail), and no exclusions, so the agent must infer when this tool is preferred over the many similar suggest tools in the sibling list.

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