autocomplete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does provide one concrete behavioral constraint: the query must be at least 3 characters. It does not disclose response format, behavior for short queries, or whether the call is read-only, but the verb 'Get' and the word 'suggestions' provide a modestly safe and accurate picture.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the most important usage constraint. There is no filler, and every phrase contributes to understanding the 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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is close to complete. It covers operation, domain, and minimum query length; the main gap is that it does not explicitly describe the return shape, though 'suggestions' already implies a list of results.

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 already describes both parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds domain context by saying results are address suggestions, which helps shape what the query should contain, but it adds no extra semantics for the limit parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('addresses'), and a behavioral constraint ('minimum 3 characters'). It clearly communicates that the tool returns address suggestions as the user types. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like geocode, but 'autocomplete' is distinct enough on its own.

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 phrase 'autocomplete suggestions' implies the usage context: interactive address entry where partial input needs completion. However, the description does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or when to prefer a sibling like geocode, leaving that inference to the agent.

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