Suggest metadata values (typeahead)

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses case/accent-insensitive contains matching, result caps (~15/20), required 'q', empty/whitespace returns [], and per-kind return shapes. This goes well beyond basic operation.

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 dense paragraph, front-loaded with 'Typeahead lookup', every sentence adds distinct information without redundancy. Very 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?

For a lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers return shapes, matching behavior, limits, and requirements. It's complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

The schema already covers both parameters, but the description adds significant semantic detail: explains the two return-shape groups for kinds, the contains-match semantics for 'q', and the cap variations. This enriches understanding beyond 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 a specific purpose: typeahead lookup over metadata facets for resolving spellings before filtering. It lists the kinds and return shapes, distinguishing it from sibling search/list tools by emphasizing its role as a pre-filter lookup.

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 explicitly frames when to use: 'use it to resolve the exact spelling of a name before browsing/filtering' with a concrete example. It doesn't name alternative tools or exclusions, but the intended context is clear.

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