get_database_autocomplete

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, or what the autocomplete suggestions contain (e.g., tables, fields, or queries).

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 sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and is under-specified. It does not earn its place by providing necessary detail, making it inefficient.

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?

Given the complexity (nested parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret the results, leaving the agent with insufficient information.

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 parameters have descriptions (e.g., 'Database ID', 'Prefix string'), but the context indicates 0% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, leaving parameters like 'substring' under-explained.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('autocomplete suggestions for a database'), which is specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_database_card_autocomplete', which could be confused for a similar function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_database_card_autocomplete' or search tools. The description lacks exclusions or context for usage.

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