calc_suggest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details on top: 'Uses contains matching (2 char min)'. This clarifies how the prefix parameter is interpreted, which goes beyond the annotation. No contradiction with the read-only hint.

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, front-loaded with purpose and then usage/behavior details. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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 2-parameter, read-only suggest tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and key matching behavior. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but the purpose ('suggest values') implies the response shape enough for an agent. Minor gap only.

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 covers both parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds the crucial 'contains matching' behavior for the prefix parameter, which is not specified in the schema. The listed fields in the description align with the enum values, providing a slight interpretive boost.

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 a specific verb ('autocomplete/suggest'), identifies the resource ('GSA CALC+ data'), and specifies the fields (labor categories, vendor names, contract numbers). It distinguishes itself from the sibling calc_search_rates and calc_contract_rates by positioning itself as the suggestion/autocomplete helper.

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?

It explicitly notes that the tool is useful for finding exact values to use in calc_search_rates, giving a clear when-to-use context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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