autocomplete

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral note the annotations do not: the engine prefers short prefixes ('derma' over 'dermatologue'), which directly affects how the agent should phrase queries. It omits return format or result limits, so not a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the capability mapping front-loaded and the practical tip clearly marked as advice. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter, read-only autocomplete tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the enum semantics, and a query-phrasing tip. What ALL returns or the shape of the results is unstated, a minor gap given annotations cover safety.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it explains the semantic meaning of the enum values (SEARCH_ENTRIES vs PROFILES) that the schema only lists as bare strings. It does not explain the ALL default, hence not a 5.

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 gives a specific verb (autocomplétion) and the resource domains it covers: specialties/acts via searchEntries and practitioners/centres via profiles. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_specialities or place_autocomplete, though it does not name them explicitly, so it falls 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?

The mapping of searchEntries to specialties/acts and profiles to practitioners/centres implies when each mode applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing against alternatives like search_practitioners or list_specialities. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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