autocomplete

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses that it 'Makes an external API call to the configured autocomplete backend (e.g., Bing, Google)', and explains behavioral nuances like single characters returning broad suggestions and sentences returning none. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage, parameter tips, and behavioral note. It is front-loaded with the primary action and stays succinct without redundancy.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, exclusions, parameter behavior, and external side effects. Nothing essential is missing.

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 schema already describes the query parameter (100% coverage), but the description adds critical semantic guidance: 'Best results come from 1-2 meaningful keywords', 'Single characters return overly broad suggestions; full sentences return none' – meaningfully enriching parameter understanding.

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 opens with 'Get search query suggestions from SearXNG', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating it is not for full web search (use search tool) or engine discovery (use engine_info tool).

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?

It explicitly states when to use ('Use this to discover relevant search terms before performing a full search'), provides query-format guidance (1-2 keywords, avoid single chars/full sentences), and names alternatives (search, engine_info) with exclusions.

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