vtex_autocomplete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or has any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for this simple tool.

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 simple read operation with one well-documented parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or an output schema, it doesn't address what format the suggestions come in (e.g., JSON array, structured objects), whether there are limits, or authentication requirements. The description meets basic needs but leaves contextual gaps.

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 description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. However, with 100% schema description coverage (the single parameter 'searchTerm' is fully documented in the schema), the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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: 'Get autocomplete suggestions for search'. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('autocomplete suggestions'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'vtex_search_products' or 'vtex_search_documents', which prevents a perfect score.

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. With siblings like 'vtex_search_products' and 'vtex_search_documents' available, there's no indication whether this tool is for preliminary search suggestions versus full searches, or what context triggers its use.

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