zappos_suggest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully explains that the response is a flat list of suggested phrases, that it contains no product data, and notably that a partial query with no real matches returns an empty result rather than an error. This goes beyond what a schema could convey, though it does not address rate limits, authorization needs, or exact serialization; those are less critical for a simple reads.

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?

Two sentences cover: the tool's purpose, the type of returned data, and the no-match behavior. There is no repeated content, and the most important information is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description fully specifies the behavior: it tells the agent the input is partial, the output is a flat list, the content is 'search phrases', and that no-match calls return an empty result instead of error. Nothing required for calling this tool appears missing.

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% for the only parameter (query = 'Partial search query'). The description calls it a 'partial query' but adds minimal semantic detail beyond the schema. By the rubric, full coverage defaults to 3, and the description does not add meaningful new parameter-level information to raise the score.

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 clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource (Zappos search-box suggestions), and a unique scope (typeahead for partial queries). It explicitly differentiates itself from full product search by saying 'no product data' and describes the response shape as a flat list of phrases, so an agent can distinguish it from zappos_search and similar siblings.

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 clearly identifies that this tool is for partial-query typeahead suggestions and indicates this is not a product search. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state 'when not to use this tool,' but the 'no product data' phrasing and the partial-query mention provide enough contextual guidance for an agent to know when it is appropriate. It lacks an explicit exclusion for full product search, so it does not reach a 5.

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