search_suggest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists what kinds of suggestions are returned but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or how an empty query is handled. The description is a noun phrase with no behavioral context beyond output content.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It enumerates the output categories in a compact list, making it efficient and easy to scan. For a simple tool, this is appropriately concise and well structured.

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 two-parameter tool has an output schema, so return structure is covered. However, the description leaves gaps: it does not explicitly instruct the agent to pass a user's search query, does not mention the optional limit in prose, and provides no usage context. It is minimally adequate but lacks behavioral and usage details.

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 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the query or limit parameters. 'Query variants' hints that query is the search input, but there is no explicit explanation of what limit does or how it interacts with the result count. With low schema coverage, the description does not compensate by adding parameter meaning.

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 provides search suggestions consisting of query variants, brands, categories, and top products, which is a specific resource and purpose. It distinguishes itself from related siblings such as search_products and list_categories by naming these output types. However, it lacks an explicit verb and does not directly contrast itself with sibling tools, so it does not earn a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_products or recommendations. The intended context (e.g., autocomplete suggestions from a user's search query) is only implied by the tool name and the content list, never explicitly stated. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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