autocomplete_paper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates a non-destructive suggestion behavior, but it does not disclose additional traits like result limits, case sensitivity, or that it only matches titles. For a simple read-only tool, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word adds value, with no unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 tool's simplicity (one string parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It states the purpose and input format clearly. The only missing context is explicit guidance on differentiation from similar tools, but that is a usage guideline issue rather than completeness.

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?

The schema provides only the parameter name 'query' with no description. The description adds meaning by clarifying that it is a 'partial query string', which is essential for understanding the input. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Suggest'), resource ('paper title completions'), and input ('partial query string'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_papers by focusing on autocomplete rather than full-text search.

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 implies usage when a user has a partial query and needs title completions, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. With many sibling tools, explicit differentiation would be helpful, but the purpose is clear enough to infer usage.

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