I understand how type annotations are useful for users and also for static analysis tools (called Dialyzer in Elixir/Erlang), which is exactly why I didn't see

I understand how type annotations are useful for users and also for static analysis tools (called Dialyzer in Elixir/Erlang), which is exactly why I didn't see why code completion would be one's primary reason for wanting them. However, in Python's case with heavy use of OOP and dot notation, I suppose I could see it being beneficial if the tools pickup up type annotations for code completion (still not the primary reason though) as opposed to something like Elixir. In Elixir, types and modules are tightly coupled, which means user's being implicitly being aware of types and also code completion generally working without type annotations (which can be inferred by Dialyzer anyway). So your comment actually backs mine up. I don't know why code completion would be the tipping point for type annotations when their usefulness to users and static analysis tools are already enough. Documentation for users is in fact enough to have them.