autocomplete_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'autocomplete functionality' and 'partial names,' implying a fuzzy search, but doesn't describe key behaviors like response format, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity of a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool returns (e.g., list of organisms with IDs), how results are ordered, or any limitations. This makes it inadequate for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and output.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (partialName and rows). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it only reiterates 'partial names' without providing additional context like examples beyond those in the schema or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Search for organisms with autocomplete functionality using partial names.' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('organisms'), and key functionality ('autocomplete'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_by_scientific_name or search_by_vernacular_name. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as explore_taxonomy, which might also involve searching.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'autocomplete functionality' but doesn't specify scenarios (e.g., for quick suggestions during user input) or exclusions (e.g., not for exact matches). With multiple search-related siblings like search_by_scientific_name, the lack of comparative context leaves usage ambiguous.

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