search_autocomplete

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation, and the description's 'Get' wording aligns with that. The description adds minimal behavioral context—that suggestions derive from the document index—but does not go beyond the annotation in any meaningful way.

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 a single clear sentence with no filler and places the core action and resource up front. It could earn a 5 with explicit guidance on when to use it, but as written it is still appropriately concise.

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 read-only, two-parameter tool with a fully covered schema, this description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. A short mention of how it differs from search_documents would make it fully complete, but nothing critical is missing.

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%, so both parameters (term and limit) are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond confirming the suggestions are index-based, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('search term autocomplete suggestions based on the document index'), which clearly communicates what the tool returns. It is distinct enough from sibling tools like search_documents, though it does not explicitly draw that distinction.

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 'based on the document index' plus the parameter 'partial search term' implies when this tool is relevant (autocomplete during search entry), but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose it over alternatives such as search_documents or get_document_suggestions. Usage context is present but not elaborated.

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