suggest_fio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions gender detection as a behavioral trait but does not disclose safety, persistence, or rate limits. For a suggest tool, the lack of explicit readOnlyHint is noticeable but the description is adequate for basic understanding.

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, no redundancy, every word adds value. Front-loaded with purpose.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema. Description hints at return shape ('suggestions with gender detection') but does not specify structure or pagination. Adequate for a simple autocomplete but could be more complete.

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 75%. The description adds marginal context (e.g., gender detection relates to the gender parameter) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. The count parameter lacks description but schema provides default and constraints.

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 tool autocompletes Russian full names (FIO) and returns suggestions with gender detection. This verb-resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like suggest_address or suggest_company.

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 guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention contexts for preferring suggest_fio over clean_name or suggest_email, nor does it exclude any scenarios.

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