Search suggestions

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds return-shape semantics absent from any output schema: each suggestion carries a category slug and a probability, and `categories` are guesses for the bare word. This is real added 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?

Two short paragraphs with no waste; the purpose comes first and the usage hint plus next step follow. The opening sentence is slightly roundabout but still front-loaded and economical.

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 lookup with no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: what is returned (slug + probability), when to reach for it, and where to go next. The `city` parameter is fully covered by the schema, so no gap remains.

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%, so both `query` and `city` are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what is there, 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?

The description names a specific function ('what Divar's search box would suggest for some text') plus a second output type (category guesses), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It partially differentiates from siblings by naming dv_search as the follow-up step, though it never explicitly contrasts with the near-neighbour dv_parse_query or dv_categories.

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 states a clear trigger condition: use this when the user only supplied a product name and you need the right category and a good query. It also points to the next tool in the workflow ('Next: dv_search'), but gives no when-not guidance or distinction from dv_parse_query.

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