search_suggestions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that suggestions are fetched for 'Decathlon NL' with no mention of what kind of suggestions are returned, whether they are ranked or limited, or how they relate to products. For an unannotated tool this is a significant transparency gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is clearly concise, though the brevity trades off against the missing usage and behavior guidance captured under other dimensions.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and an output schema exists to describe the return structure. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description is minimally adequate for a simple tool but leaves the agent to guess at how this differs from sibling tools and what the suggestion set contains.

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 100% and the single parameter 'query' is already well-documented in the schema with an example ('jas' for jacket). The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('search suggestions'), making the tool's core purpose clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling search_products — while 'suggestions' implies autocomplete-style output, an agent could still confuse it with search_products without opening the schema.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus search_products, get_product_details, or get_reviews. The word 'suggestions' weakly implies a distinction, but there is no explicit when/when-not information, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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