Google Search Autocomplete

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful commercial detail of 1 credit per call, but says nothing about the shape of the result (a list of suggestion strings) or whether localization params affect cost.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the cost. The opening sentence merely restates the title verbatim, which is mild waste, but nothing else is extraneous.

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 an 8-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and cost but not the returned value's structure or how the suggestion list relates to cp/cr/lr. An agent can call it correctly from the schema alone, but the description leaves gaps a richer definition would fill.

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% and all 8 parameters (cp, cr, gl, hl, lr, fields, google_domain) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Get Google Search autocomplete suggestions') tied to a given query, which is clearly distinct from full-search siblings like google_search or google_search_light. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, keeping it 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 autocomplete framing implies the use case (query expansion / prefix suggestion lookup), and the credit cost line hints at the tradeoff versus other search tools. However, there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many search siblings.

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