Retrieve search suggestions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the 'partial input / typeahead' framing and says nothing about return shape or how suggestions are computed, so it contributes modest value beyond the annotations.

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?

It is short, but the title 'Retrieve search suggestions' is repeated verbatim as the opening line and then restated as 'Retrieve search suggestions based on partial input', so roughly a third of the text is redundant. The 'Immich operation' line is boilerplate rather than agent-useful 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?

For a read-only suggestion endpoint with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly: the resource, the partial-input nature, and the typeahead scenario. Only return-value behavior and pagination are unaddressed, which is minor here.

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% across all 7 parameters (including the required 'type' enum and the optional make/model/state/country/lensModel/includeNull filters), so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the baseline 3.

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 ('Retrieve search suggestions') and adds the operative detail 'based on partial input', which tells the agent exactly what kind of input it consumes. It does not differentiate itself from the many sibling search tools (immich_search_places, immich_search_person, immich_get_explore_data), so it stops 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?

The sentence 'This endpoint is used for typeahead search features' gives clear usage context: partial-input autocomplete rather than full search. It names no alternative tool and states no exclusions, so it sits at clear-context-without-exclusions rather than the explicit when/when-not of a 5.

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