search_suggest

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond that: the result is capped at the top 10 suggestions, which tells the agent to expect a bounded, ranked list. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth needs, keeping it below 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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the core purpose leads and the parameter summary follows. 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 simple two-parameter, read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies enough: what it returns (top 10), scoping (prefix, optional tag), and the safe-read nature via annotations. Only the absence of guidance against sibling tools keeps it from 5.

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% — both `prefix` and `tag` are documented in the schema with the same Arabic example ('شاشة') the description repeats. The description therefore adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Live search-box autocomplete' that 'Returns the top 10 suggestions for a typed prefix.' That is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as search, trending_keywords, or related_tags, so it stops 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?

'Live search-box autocomplete' implies the usage context (as-you-type prefix matching) but never states when to prefer this over the sibling `search` tool or when it is inappropriate. Usage is inferable, not explicit.

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