Google Suggest

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds genuinely useful context: Google rate-limits this endpoint and results can come back blocked, with a recommended recovery path. It does not describe the shape or reliability of results beyond the blocking caveat.

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?

Two short sentences with the capability front-loaded and the operational caveat second; no filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but with 0% schema coverage the description leaves both parameters undefined and never clarifies what 'no block' means. Adequate for the operation itself, incomplete for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0% for two parameters, and the description says nothing about either. In particular 'hl' (default 'en') is never identified as a language code nor is the expected format given for 'query', so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 resource (Google autocomplete suggestions) with a qualifier, so an agent can tell it apart from the many sibling search tools. The parenthetical '(no block)' is cryptic and not explained anywhere, which slightly muddies the purpose.

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 behavioral usage guidance ('avoid rapid repeats', 'when blocked, wait or switch to an RSS-based tool'), which implies when the tool fails and what to do. However, it never says when to prefer this autocomplete tool over sibling search tools like google_search or google_web_search, so selection guidance is only implied.

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