location-autocomplete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it returns IDs needed for filters, which is useful, but it doesn't describe the response structure, whether cities and departments are returned together, ordering, pagination, or edge cases like empty results.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the purpose and the output's role, with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple autocomplete tool with full schema coverage, the description adequately explains what the tool does and how the output is used downstream. However, without an output schema, a bit more detail about the response format would improve completeness.

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% coverage, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (query, excludeCities, excludeDepartments). The tool description itself doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 it autocompletes cities and departments by search query, and explicitly mentions that it returns IDs needed for location filters in search-properties and create-search. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-cities.

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?

It explicitly says the returned IDs are needed for location filters in search-properties and create-search, giving clear context on when to use the tool. While it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives, the downstream consumer tools are referenced, providing sufficient guidance.

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