input_tips

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the primary function without mentioning safety, rate limits, response format, or any constraints, offering minimal transparency about the tool's behavior.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It earns its place by clearly stating the purpose, though it could include a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has no output schema and the description does not explain the structure of returned suggestions, nor does it provide broader context for an agent deciding when to use it. This leaves significant gaps for a simple autocomplete tool.

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 descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the explanatory burden.

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 provides search suggestions based on input keywords, using the autocomplete analogy to distinguish it from full search tools like search_poi. The verb and resource are specific, and the scope is well-defined.

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 implies usage for autocomplete-style suggestions but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as search_poi or search_around. There is no mention of when not to use it or alternatives, so guidance is only implied.

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