usas_autocomplete_recipient

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds value by specifying the return of up to 10 fuzzy matches with UEI/DUNS and highlighting anti-hallucination behavior, which are not in annotations.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and anti-hallucination warning. Every sentence provides essential information 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?

Given the simple input schema and no output schema, the description covers the tool's behavior adequately: it mentions fuzzy matches, limits, and UEI/DUNS. It could mention what 'fuzzy' means, but overall sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'searchText' or 'limit' parameters. It only hints at 'searchText' by context. For a tool with 2 parameters, more explicit parameter description is needed.

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 verb 'Autocomplete' and the resource 'recipient names', and explains the anti-hallucination purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings like usas_search_recipients by specifying a focused autocomplete function.

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 advises using this tool to confirm exact legal names before searching, which is clear guidance on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if you already have the exact name).

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