predictive_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose ('Get predictive search results') without revealing any additional behavior such as response format, filtering scope, or whether it includes all types by default. This is minimal disclosure, though the read-only nature is inferred from 'Get'.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose in as few words as possible. There is no wasted language, and the parenthetical efficiently adds key context about the nature of the results.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and only a minimal description, yet it has 3 parameters including a complex 'types' enum. The description does not explain what predictive search returns, whether results are limited to products, collections, etc., or how the 'first' and 'types' parameters interact. More detail is needed to make the tool usable without additional context.

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% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3 per the rubric. The description adds no information about parameters beyond the schema; it does not mention 'query', 'first', or 'types' or how they behave, but the schema already fully documents them. Thus the description neither enhances nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'predictive search results' and adds the clarifying parenthetical '(autocomplete)', which directly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_products and get_product_recommendations. This is a precise and unambiguous statement of 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?

The description implies the use case for autocomplete/typeahead through the parenthetical, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_products or get_product_recommendations. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, so guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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