primo_suggest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as getting suggestions (a read operation) and returns a list of terms. There is no mention of side effects, rate limits, or destructive actions, which is acceptable for an autocomplete tool.

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 clear sections (Args and Returns). Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 has only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description is complete. It explains input and output sufficiently, leaving no ambiguity for correct invocation.

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%, but the description adds significant value by explaining that 'query' is a partial search term and provides examples (e.g., 'entrepre'). This compensates for the lack of documentation in the schema.

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 gets autocomplete suggestions for a search term, and distinguishes it from siblings like primo_search (full search) and primo_get_record (specific record retrieval). It lists specific uses: refining searches, checking subject headings, and exploring related terms.

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 states it is useful before running a full search, implying when to use it. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, the sibling tool 'primo_search' provides a clear contrast for full search scenarios.

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