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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only — never modifies data' largely restates structured data rather than adding to it. The description does add that results are customer profiles rather than a count, but omits pagination behavior, empty-result behavior, and whether the search is prefix/substring/fuzzy — gaps that matter for a search tool with no output schema.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and searchable fields, then the return shape. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 simple two-parameter read-only lookup with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, inputs, and return shape adequately; no output schema exists so return detail isn't required. It falls short only on result-volume/pagination behavior and matching semantics.

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 100% — both 'search' and 'limit' are fully documented in the schema, including the default (10) and maximum (100). The description's enumeration of searchable fields duplicates the schema's own 'search' description and adds no matching semantics (exact vs partial) beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (customers), enumerates the four searchable fields (name, email, phone, client ID), and says what comes back ('a list of matching customer profiles'). No sibling tool in the list performs customer search, so no disambiguation is needed.

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 implied by the field list — an agent can infer this is the tool for looking up a customer by identifier — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when a different tool (e.g. list_partners) is more appropriate, and no prerequisite or exclusion noted.

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