get_search_suggestions

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden, but this is a low-risk read/suggestion operation and the description does convey the shape of the result ('a list of suggested completion terms'). It does not mention rate limits, permissions, or empty-result behavior, so it is adequate rather than rich.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. But the trailing 'Args:' and 'Returns:' blocks restate the schema and the existing output schema respectively, adding length without new information.

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 one-parameter suggestion tool with an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when it is useful, and what the input means. The only gap is sibling differentiation, which the output schema does not need to supply.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It does by defining query as 'a partial search term' and giving a concrete example ('mito'), which is meaningfully more than the bare 'string' type in the schema.

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 auto-complete search suggestions for a partial query' — which an agent can distinguish from the plain search siblings like search_locations. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast against, so it stops short of a 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?

It gives the scenario ('useful for interactive search experiences — as the user types'), which implies when to reach for it. However, it never says when NOT to use it or how to choose it over search_locations, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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