Search autocomplete

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that it returns suggestions for a partial query, which is already implied by schema. It doesn't disclose behavior like result format or any rate limits, but no contradictions and a neutral score is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and provides a usage tip. Zero waste, efficient.

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 with only 2 parameters and no output schema. The description explains its purpose and typical usage. It doesn't detail return structure, but given the output schema absence and low complexity, it's adequate. Could mention what format results come in, but not critical.

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%, so both parameters are documented with descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning—it mentions 'partial user query' which aligns with userQuery schema. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is correct; the description doesn't add significant value beyond 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's purpose: getting search-query autocomplete suggestions from oskelly.ru for a partial query. It distinguishes itself from other search-related siblings by focusing on autocomplete suggestions for partial input, though it doesn't explicitly compare to 'oskelly_search_products' or 'oskelly_search_facets'.

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?

It states a clear use case: discovering how the marketplace phrases things before running a full search. This implies it's a preliminary step and guides the agent to use it before a full search, but it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives.

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