complete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that dense protocols can return many entries and that limit can cap results (0=no cap). It also mentions the requirement of at least one prefix. This provides good insight into behavior, though return format is not described.

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 extremely concise, using bullet-style and backticks for clarity. It front-loads the main action and each sentence adds value. No superfluous text.

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 no output schema and a simple task, the description covers inputs, constraints, and potential scale. It lacks mention of return type or errors, but is reasonably complete for an autocomplete tool.

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 explain parameters. It explains field and pref with examples, and limit with its purpose. However, the required 'alias' parameter is not described at all. Overall, three of four parameters are well 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 tool autocompletes field or preference names by prefix, with specific examples for each. It distinguishes between field and pref, and there are no sibling autocomplete tools, so it is unique.

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 specifies that at least one of field or pref must be provided, and explains the limit parameter for handling dense protocols. While it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, no sibling tool serves the same purpose, so the guidance is adequate.

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