Get Search Suggestions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and external access. The description adds the autocomplete context but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, result limits, or error handling. With an output schema present, this is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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, focused sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without any filler or unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and immediately understandable.

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 2-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the core purpose and appropriately relies on the schema for parameter details and return values.

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 input schema provides 100% parameter coverage: 'term' is described as 'Partial search term' and 'country' is described with a default value. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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's function: 'Get App Store autocomplete suggestions for a partial search term.' This uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('autocomplete suggestions'), and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like app_store_search (full search) and app_store_similar (similar apps) by focusing on partial-term suggestions.

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 explicitly states the intended scenario: providing autocomplete suggestions for a partial search term. This gives clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not name alternatives or exclusions, though the autocomplete framing strongly implies it is for suggestion-style queries rather than full search or listing.

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