suggest

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the output type (similar products and clarifying queries) but says nothing about whether the call is read-only, whether authentication is required, side effects, or error behavior. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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?

A single short sentence with the core idea front-loaded and no filler words. It is efficient, though the brevity trades away substantive guidance.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must supply return semantics, parameter meaning, and usage context on its own. It provides a one-line summary of the return content but omits parameter semantics and any operational conditions, leaving an agent to guess at a correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention 'term' or 'limit' at all; 'поиска' (search) weakly implies term is a search query, but limit's meaning, default, and range are entirely undocumented.

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 states a specific function: producing search hints in the form of similar products and clarifying queries. It implicitly distinguishes from search_products (actual results vs. suggestions), though it never names the sibling or the boundary explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this tool is for autocomplete/suggestion scenarios rather than full search. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as search_products, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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