suggest_keywords

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a hard cap of 10 suggestions and the fact that symbols such as + and # are ignored during suggestion matching, which materially affects how an agent should phrase the input term.

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?

Two short sentences plus an English synonym parenthetical; the result cap and symbol behavior are front-loaded and nothing is padded. Slightly more frugal than a fully optimized definition but no wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the read-only/open-world profile. The description supplies purpose, result count, and input-symbol behavior, leaving only the selection guidance versus search_videos unstated.

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 `term` parameter is already documented as a possibly partial keyword. The description adds no format, length, or normalization rules for the term itself, so this sits at the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: 'B 站搜索框的联想词' (Bilibili search-box autocomplete terms), capped at 10. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like search_videos or get_video_info, though it never names an alternative to reinforce the contrast.

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?

Usage is only implied by '搜索框的联想词' — an agent can infer this is for typeahead-style suggestion expansion, not full search. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no pointer to search_videos as the alternative for actual result retrieval.

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