sevennow_suggest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does an excellent job by disclosing the minimum length constraint (3 characters), the resulting invalid-param error, the differences between vertical indexes, and the sparse nature of the 'global' index. The only gap is that it does not describe the return structure (e.g., whether it's a list, object, etc.) or any other potential behaviors like latency or rate limits, which would be valuable.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it opens with the purpose, then provides examples, then states the constraint and error, and finally details the vertical semantics. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool, and the use of concrete examples makes it highly readable.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, constraints, error behavior, and vertical distinctions. It does not specify the exact output format, but since no output schema is present, a more detailed description of the return structure would be beneficial. Nevertheless, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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?

Although the schema already documents both parameters (100% coverage), the description adds significant semantic value beyond the schema. It explains the minimum length enforcement and its error behavior for 'q', and it clarifies the material differences between vertical values with concrete examples ('convenience' vs 'restaurant' for 'chi'), which the schema does not convey. This goes well above the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get 7NOW search-term suggestions' with concrete examples of input-output behavior ('chi' -> 'chips ahoy'). It specifies the resource (7NOW search terms) and the operation (suggestions/completions), which is unambiguous and distinguishes it from the broader search tool (sevennow_search) 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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (for partial-query completions) and includes a key usage note ('No store is required'), which helps avoid unnecessary prerequisites. It also explains the vertical parameter's effect on results. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, so it misses the exclusion clause that would warrant a 5.

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