zara_suggest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral detail: it returns Zara's own typeahead suggestions and explicitly states that nonsense queries get an empty suggestions array rather than fallback results. This is beyond what a basic read operation would imply.

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 not overly long but has redundancy: the first sentence and the first half of the second sentence express nearly the same idea. The empty-suggestions behavior is valuable and the purpose is front-loaded, but the repetition could be trimmed.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, source, and a relevant edge behavior. It does not detail the exact response shape beyond mentioning 'a suggestions array', but the tool's simplicity and the clarity of that mention make this mostly complete.

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 describes 'query' as 'Partial search keyword', and the description merely repeats the same wording. It does not add new parameter semantics (e.g., min length, format, example values). With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Zara search-box suggestions for a partial keyword'), explicitly framing this as the typeahead suggestions shown while typing into Zara's search box. It also distinguishes between Zara-specific suggestions and full search-results calls, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives clear usage context: use for partial keyword suggestions, not for full search results. It does not explicitly name alternatives like zara_search or provide when-not-to-use conditions, but the focus on typeahead and partial keyword is enough to guide an agent.

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