Autocomplete a search term

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and openWorldHint true, so the description only adds context about returning suggestions and matching products. It does not describe pagination, limits, or other behavioral traits, but the annotation coverage means it doesn't carry the full burden.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and every sentence contributes value. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and use case. It could mention how to interpret the response or note limitations, but it is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 'Partial search term' describing the query parameter. The description adds 'vague phrase' which reinforces the partial nature but doesn't add new syntax or format details beyond schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('type-ahead lookup') and resource ('search-term suggestions' with categories and matching products). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on resolving vague phrases before a full search.

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 mentions when to use: 'Useful to resolve a vague phrase into a concrete product or category before searching.' This gives clear context but does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or name alternatives like galaxus_search, so it misses the top score.

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