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 states the action ('retrieve search suggestions') without detailing aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, response format, error handling, or whether it's read-only or has side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and avoids redundancy, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity. Overall, it's appropriately sized for its content.

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 complexity of a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, response format, and usage context, which are crucial for an AI agent to effectively invoke the tool. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but other aspects remain underspecified.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all three parameters ('count', 'country', 'q'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact or typical use cases. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool 'retrieves search suggestions based on query parameters', which provides a basic verb+resource combination ('retrieve search suggestions'). However, it doesn't specify what type of search suggestions (e.g., autocomplete, related queries, or content-specific) or distinguish this tool from sibling search tools like 'Search_Web', 'Search_Images', or 'Spellcheck_Search', making the purpose somewhat vague.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any specific context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'Search_Web' or 'Spellcheck_Search' that might serve similar or overlapping purposes. This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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