Alza search suggestions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context by noting it is 'cheap' via 'plain HTTP, no page render' and by summarizing the response shape. It stops short of stating rate limits or latency expectations, so it falls just under full marks.

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 compact sentences: the first front-loads the cost/behavior differentiator, the second the usage and chaining. No filler, no repetition of schema content.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering return values, the description only needs purpose, cost behavior, and routing — all present. Nothing required to call or chain this tool correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both `query` (Czech diacritics supported) and `limit` (default 5, max 10) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies; the `category_id` mention refers to another tool's parameter, not this one.

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 verb+resource (search-box suggestions) and enumerates the returned content (phrases, categories, brands, products with ids/codes), which cleanly separates it from the full `search_products` sibling. An agent can tell instantly that this is a lightweight suggestion endpoint, not a product search.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('refine a messy Czech query before a full `search_products`') and names the downstream alternatives, including how to feed results forward (category id into `category_id`, product code into `get_product`). Routing to the correct sibling is fully specified.

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