Get store autocomplete suggestions

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

The description adds a metered-cost disclosure ('Consumes one autocomplete query and one API request'), which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express and which explains the non-read-only, non-idempotent hints. It does not describe the returned suggestion structure or any rate-limit behavior, so it is useful but not complete.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the purpose, then the cost. No filler, though the third sentence could be folded into the second without loss.

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 read-oriented lookup with a fully documented four-parameter schema, the definition covers action, input constraint, intent, and quota cost. The only gap is the absence of any statement about what the response contains, which matters slightly because no output schema exists.

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%, with all four parameters (store enum, country, lang, prefix) documented in the schema. The description repeats the prefix length bound and store sources but adds no format or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Fetch autocomplete suggestions from the App Store or Google Play for a given prefix') plus the input constraint (1-60 chars). Clear on its own, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_autocomplete_history, leaving the live-fetch vs. stored-history distinction to inference.

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?

'Useful to discover what users are searching for that starts with a given seed' gives a use context, but there is no when-not guidance and no named alternative. An agent must infer that this is the live lookup rather than the historical listing.

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