get_search_suggestions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't explicitly state that no data is modified, any authentication requirements, or rate limits. It also implies 'given city' while city is optional with a default, which could mislead an agent into thinking city is mandatory. The description fails to disclose any operational nuances beyond the basic action.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no wasted text; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. It is efficiently structured and easy to 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 tool with two parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It clarifies the input parameters but does not describe the return format (e.g., a list of suggestion strings) or any limitations such as supported cities or error conditions. An agent may be left guessing about the response structure, especially since no output schema is available.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It mentions both parameters: 'prefix' and 'city', clarifying that prefix is a search prefix and city is the location. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type/default. However, it doesn't address the default value of 'iran' for city or any formatting constraints beyond schema minLength, but the core semantics are clear.

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 action (Get), the resource (autocomplete suggestions), and the context (for a search prefix in a given city). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_popular_searches and search_listings, which serve different purposes. The verb and noun are specific enough that an agent knows exactly what this tool does.

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: use when autocomplete suggestions for a search prefix are needed within a city. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the purpose is self-evident and distinguishes it from related tools. The context is clear enough for correct selection without additional guidance.

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