Get Search Suggestions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds a non-obvious behavioral trait — results are cached for up to 30 minutes, so suggestions may be stale. That is genuine value beyond structured data, though nothing is said about result shape or ranking.

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 core purpose front-loaded and the caching caveat as a secondary clause. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, this is nearly complete, but there is no output schema and the description never indicates what a suggestion looks like (plain strings vs. objects with labels/hrefs). That leaves a small but real gap for an agent consuming the result.

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 100%, with both 'query' and 'limit' documented in the schema, so the description needs no parameter detail. It adds nothing beyond the schema but does not need to; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('get search autocompletion suggestions and related grocery query keywords') plus the provider, which is enough to separate it from ah_search_products or ah_search_recipes. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with, so it stops short of 5.

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 word 'autocompletion' implies the intended use (typeahead / prefix completion rather than full product search), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to ah_search_products for full searches. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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