google_autocomplete

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

Description discloses key behaviors: returns suggestions with relevance scores, based on country and language, and notes no pagination. However, it lacks explicit mention of read-only nature, rate limits, or error handling. Since no annotations are present, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 short but includes filler ('Credits: Not specified in documentation') that adds no value. Could be tightened by removing that line.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description specifies the return format with fields. It covers the core functionality well, though it omits details like field descriptions ('type' unclarified) and possible empty results.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, and the description reinforces their purpose (query, country, language). No additional semantics beyond 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?

The description clearly states it returns Google Search autocomplete suggestions for a query, including relevance scores. It differentiates from generic search tools but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling autocomplete tools like google_trends_autocomplete.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like google_search or other autocomplete tools. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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