autocomplete_card_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: a result cap of 20 and fuzzy matching for misspelled input, plus an implicit guarantee of 'real' (non-hallucinated) names. It does not state that the operation is read-only or describe ordering, empty-result behavior, or rate limits.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose, limit, and input type with zero wasted words. Ideal structure for a simple tool.

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?

Given the low complexity, the presence of an output schema (so return values needn't be explained), and no annotations, the description covers the essentials for correct invocation. The main remaining gap is tying this tool to the sibling search_cards, which is a routing concern more than a completeness one.

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 0% and the single 'partial' parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It does define the expected input as 'a partial or misspelled name', which adds real semantic value beyond the bare type, but omits constraints like minimum length or case sensitivity.

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 ('Suggest'), resource ('real card names'), scope ('up to 20'), and input trigger ('partial or misspelled name'). It clearly conveys the tool's function, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling search_cards, which is the most likely alternative for name lookups.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'for a partial or misspelled name', giving the agent a clear triggering condition. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use versus search_cards guidance and no exclusions, leaving the routing decision partly to inference.

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