search_suggest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool returns the top 10 suggestions, is prefix-based, and is intended for a live search box, which conveys read-only, response-shaping behavior. It does not explain tag filtering effects or rate-limit/auth behavior, but those are secondary for a simple suggestion endpoint.

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-load the core behavior and follow with parameter requirements. There is no filler or repetition.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, the prefix semantics, the result count, and required vs optional inputs. The only meaningful gap is the meaning of the optional 'tag' parameter, so it is nearly complete.

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 compensate. It meaningfully clarifies 'prefix' (a typed prefix with a concrete example) and marks 'tag' as optional, but it never explains what 'tag' does or how it affects suggestions, leaving one of two parameters under-specified.

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: it 'returns the top 10 suggestions for a typed prefix' and labels itself as live search-box autocomplete. This clearly separates it from a full search tool like the sibling 'search' or 'user_mention_suggestions'.

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 phrase 'live search-box autocomplete' gives a clear context for when to call it, and the required/optional parameter note guides invocation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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