xdr_get_suggestions

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantial behavior beyond them — zero-record responses instead of errors for unmatched values and unknown fields, roughly ten-entry result caps, and the need to narrow the prefix to page further. It also explains the value/label pair structure of each entry, which matters for correct follow-up queries.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and rationale, with no filler. The closing clause about unknown field names returning empty is a minor restatement of the earlier zero-records point, which slightly dilutes the ending.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the return shape (value plus label), result volume, and pagination approach. Combined with fully documented parameters and explicit failure semantics, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by framing prefix as the mechanism for both narrowing and pagination past the ten-entry cap, and by tying field to xdr_get_mapping's show_suggestions marker. The section parameter is left entirely to the enum.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('look up real values of a field') plus the optional narrowing behavior. It is clearly distinguished from siblings: field names come from xdr_get_mapping, and this tool resolves values rather than searching records. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering condition ('when a query returns nothing and the value may simply be spelled differently') and explains why guessing is unsafe, since an unmatched value returns zero records rather than an error. It also routes the agent to xdr_get_mapping for field discovery and notes to search on the value, not the label.

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