usas_autocomplete_recipient

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

Discloses key behavior: returns up to 10 fuzzy matches with UEI/DUNS where available. With no annotations, this covers the main traits but omits side effects, rate limits, or read-only status.

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 with no waste. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds critical usage guidance and behavioral details. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 autocomplete tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and key behavior. Slight gap on parameter details and return format, but adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 has no descriptions and 0% coverage. Description does not explicitly explain searchText or limit parameters. It implies searchText is the name to autocomplete and limit may affect count, but lacks explicit semantic details.

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?

Clearly states the action (autocomplete) and resource (recipient names), and distinguishes from sibling tools like usas_search_recipients by explicitly positioning it as an anti-hallucination step before name-based searches.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: to confirm a recipient's exact legal name before searching, reducing hallucination risk. Does not mention when not to use, but the context is clear.

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