Search suggestions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: this is prefix/autocomplete matching on the start of a phrase, and its value is vocabulary discovery rather than result retrieval. It does not describe the shape or ordering of the returned suggestions, which is the remaining gap.

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, zero filler, with the capability stated first and the routing advice second. Every clause carries information the agent can act on.

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 covers what the tool does, its prefix-matching nature, and how it fits into a search workflow. The only missing piece is a hint at what comes back (a list of suggested phrases), which matters slightly more given there is no output schema.

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 both parameters including the Persian prefix example and the 1–10 limit range. The description's 'start of a phrase' restates the prefix semantics without adding syntax, format, or normalization guidance, so it lands at the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 verb and resource ('Get Faradars search-box suggestions') and pins the scope with '(autocomplete)' plus 'for the start of a phrase'. It also distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling, fr_search_courses, so an agent can tell the two apart without inspecting schemas.

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 an explicit use case — discovering the site's own wording for a topic before calling fr_search_courses — which is exactly the routing decision an agent faces among 15 siblings. It stops short of a when-not clause (e.g., don't use for full-text search or for already-known exact titles), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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