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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds beyond these by stating it does not expose addresses, notes, or other private fields—an explicit behavioral trait about data filtering. This is valuable context not available in the annotations and is consistent with them. No contradiction.

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 a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the primary action and scope, then appends a useful qualifier about privacy. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or 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 simple read-only search tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It communicates the search target and the privacy filter, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. A minor omission is the lack of explicit mention that it returns a list of matches, but that is implicit for a search tool and covered by the absence of an output schema (no expectation of a single object). Overall, adequate without being exhaustive.

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 input schema already describes both parameters with full coverage (100%): 'limit' as max customers and 'query' as search terms. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No extra clarification is needed.

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 ('searches') and resource ('customers'), and clarifies scope ('authenticated workspace customers'). It also distinguishes itself by noting it does not expose private fields, which helps separate it from other search tools like search-leads or search-invoices. Clear, specific, and differentiated.

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 implies usage: it is a search operation for customers, with the added qualifier that it avoids private fields, which informs selection when sensitive data should be omitted. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., get-customer for detailed info) or when not to use it. This is a minor gap but the context is clear enough for an agent to route appropriately.

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