get_search_suggestions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states that it returns suggestions without detailing the response format, any filtering behavior, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only (though the 'Get' verb implies it). This lack of disclosure leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect.

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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The core action and purpose are front-loaded, and it efficiently points to the primary use case without redundancy.

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 tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It omits details about the return shape (e.g., list of strings vs. objects) and any edge cases, which an agent would benefit from knowing. Since complexity is low, this is a moderate gap, not severe.

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 each parameter having a meaningful description (e.g., query example, limit bounds, officialOnly meaning). The tool description adds no extra parameter context, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('Toco's autocomplete suggestions'), and the specific purpose ('discovering how sellers actually spell a product'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling search_products by positioning it as a pre-search step, making its role unambiguous.

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 description explicitly indicates when to use the tool ('before running search_products') and why it's useful (spelling discovery). It does not enumerate alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when this is the right call.

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