suggest_locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate those. The description adds implementation behavior (parallel queries) and output features (resolving IDs/coordinates), which is useful but not comprehensive. It does not disclose potential latency, aggregation details, or failure modes. Given the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Autocomplete search query') and followed by a brief technical note on how it works. There is no redundancy or extraneous information, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. It covers the core functionality, mentions parallel provider queries, and notes the types of resolved data. It does not mention pagination or limit-per-provider behavior, but the schema's 'limit' parameter description already covers that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool correctly without ambiguity.

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%, so all parameters (query, limit, provider) are already well documented with examples and defaults. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters; it merely reinforces what the schema states. The description's mention of 'parallel' queries indirectly references the provider parameter, but the schema already explains that. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3.

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 performs autocomplete for destinations, cities, districts, landmarks, and properties, and distinguishes it from sibling suggest tools like suggest_dining (restaurants) and suggest_tabelog (Tabelog-specific). It also specifies that it queries typeahead endpoints in parallel and resolves destination IDs, geo-coordinates, and property identifiers, giving a precise sense of scope and output.

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 implies usage for location-typeahead needs, and the context of sibling tools (suggest_dining, suggest_tabelog) makes the primary use case clear. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusionary guidance. The verb 'Autocomplete search query' and resource list are clear enough for a 4.

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