Search suggestions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the external-read nature is covered. The description meaningfully adds the result cap of 50 and that input is a partial term, but says nothing about result ordering, rate limits, or what an empty response means.

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?

Two short sentences with the capability and its bound front-loaded, followed by the use case. No redundant restatement of the title or schema details.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Minor gap: it doesn't describe the shape of returned suggestions or how they should be used downstream.

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 coverage is 100%, with both 'term' (partial search term) and 'country' (two-letter code, default us, affects result language) fully documented in the schema. The description only reiterates that a 'term' is required and adds no new semantics, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get ... App Store search autocomplete suggestions') plus a bounded scope ('up to 50'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from search_apps by being autocomplete rather than full app search, though it doesn't name the sibling explicitly.

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 'Useful for keyword/ASO research' gives an implied usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use rule, no exclusion of cases better served by search_apps or similar_apps, and no mention of how to follow up on the suggestions.

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