zalando_suggest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type ('query completions') and a key behavioral constraint (market has no default, must be specified). It also warns that the market list is dynamic by referencing zalando-markets. This is helpful, though it does not mention rate limits, response size, or other potential quirks.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose, then provides an illustrative example, then states the market requirement and points to a reference tool. Each sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy, making it easy to read and parse.

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 two-parameter suggest tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, example, and parameter constraints, and it cross-references zalando-markets for dynamic data. It could be slightly more detailed about the response structure or any limits, but given the simplicity, this is mostly sufficient.

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?

The schema already covers both parameters fully (100% coverage). The description adds value by giving a concrete example for 'q' ("running sho" -> "running shoes") and clarifying that 'market' accepts 25 country storefronts. However, it stops short of specifying the exact format or allowed values, leaving some ambiguity for the market parameter.

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 function: 'Autocomplete a Zalando search query' and specifically notes it returns 'Zalando's own search-box query completions'. It provides a concrete example ("running sho" -> "running shoes") and distinguishes itself from other Zalando tools by focusing on autocomplete rather than full search results.

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 keyword autocomplete. It also highlights an important usage constraint: 'market is required (there is no default storefront)', and points to zalando-markets for the list of allowed values. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools for similar tasks, such as zalando_search for full search.

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