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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail: contacts are masked unless permitted, which signals PII handling and authorization dependency. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, return shape, or how cursor-based paging behaves, so it adds some value but remains thin.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core action. There is no filler or wasted sentence. However, its brevity crosses into under-specification for a 9-parameter search tool, so it is concise but not sufficiently informative.

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?

This is a complex search tool with 9 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema. The description contributes only the customer-search purpose and a PII masking note. It does not explain searchable fields, sorting, pagination, source selection, currency filtering, workspace scoping, or Shopify connection handling, which are all important for 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% across 9 parameters, so the description must carry the burden of explaining parameters. It only indirectly hints at include_pii via the contacts-masking note; query, sort, limit, cursor, source, currency, workspace, and shopify_connection are entirely unexplained. This leaves most parameter semantics 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 verb and resource: 'Find customers.' That is clear enough for an agent to know this is a customer search operation. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool customers_get, which likely retrieves an individual customer; the distinction between search and get is left implicit.

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 instead of customers_get or any other sibling. It also does not explain when to set include_pii or how permissions affect that choice. The only usage hint is the masking caveat, which is implied rather than explicitly stated as a condition.

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