autocomplete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it 'gets suggestions' but does not disclose matching behavior (exact/partial), case sensitivity, response format, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 with 14 words. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. No superfluous information.

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?

With no output schema and no behavioral context, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the suggestions look like (e.g., list of strings?), how results are ordered, or any limitations (e.g., max suggestions beyond limit parameter). Given the tool has 4 parameters and is a retrieval operation, more context is needed.

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 schema already describes each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no explanation of query formatting or taxonomyType implications). 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 the tool returns autocomplete suggestions for specific taxonomies (categories, brands, etc.). The verb 'Get' and resource 'autocomplete suggestions' are well-defined. It distinguishes from sibling tools like advancedSearch, which perform full searches.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for quick suggestions while typing, but does not exclude when to use sibling tools (e.g., searchProducts for full results). Usage context is implied, not stated.

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