autocomplete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are suggested keywords and matching newsletters, but does not mention read-only behavior, pagination, or any side effects. The description is insufficient for a complete understanding of tool behavior.

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?

Single sentence, no redundant information. Front-loads the action and output. Perfectly concise for the information provided.

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 no output schema and two parameters, the description provides the core purpose. However, it omits details like the number of suggestions, sorting, or whether it is safe to call repeatedly. For a simple autocomplete tool, it is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so parameters are documented. The description adds context that the tool returns suggestions, but does not explain how the 'mode' parameter influences results (e.g., suggests keywords vs titles). Schema descriptions are minimal ('Search mode.', 'Search query.'), and the tool description adds little extra meaning.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns suggested keywords and matching newsletters for a search query. It identifies the verb, resource, and context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like search_publications or search_issues, which also deal with newsletters.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include search_publications and list_issues, but the description does not explain that autocomplete is for suggestions while others are for full searches. Implies usage via 'for a search query' but lacks explicit direction.

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