Akakçe autocomplete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what the tool returns (suggestions, categories, optional product codes), which is useful, but it says nothing about side effects, authentication, rate limits, empty-result behavior, or response shape. For a simple read operation this is adequate but incomplete.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose, return contents, and usage condition. It is front-loaded and every sentence contributes without repetition.

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 one-parameter autocomplete tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, return values, and when to use it. It could be slightly richer about result ordering or limits, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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%, and the schema already documents the single `query` parameter with an example ('rtx 5070'). The description adds purpose context but no syntax, formatting, or constraints beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource and behavior: it returns Akakçe search suggestions, product/category recommendations, and optional product codes for a query. This is clearly not a full search, but it does not explicitly name the sibling akakce_search as the alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives a concrete usage condition: 'If the user does not know the exact product name, first use this to find the correct phrase/code.' That is strong guidance, though it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name the competing search tool.

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