alopeyk_location_suggestion

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the HTTP method (GET) and mentions it's on-demand with token requirement. However, it does not explicitly say it is read-only or describe any side effects. The description is adequate but could be more explicit about safety (e.g., non-destructive).

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 concise, with three short sentences plus an Args section. It front-loads the main purpose and includes a Persian translation and HTTP mapping. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information.

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 that an output schema exists (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the input parameters, endpoint, and authentication requirement. It is complete for an autocomplete tool, though it could mention that results are suggestions to match user input.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains all three parameters: input (partial address/place name), latlng (optional bias), and instance (default). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type definitions. The explanations are clear and sufficient for an agent to use the parameters correctly.

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 provides autocomplete address suggestions for a free-text query. It specifies the verb (autocomplete) and resource (addresses). The Persian text and HTTP endpoint further clarify the purpose, and it is easily distinguished from siblings like alopeyk_get_address.

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 mentions it requires an access_token and is on-demand, which guides when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the autocomplete nature and optional latlng bias provide sufficient context. No explicit alternatives are given, but the sibling list is available.

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