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 covered. The description adds only that the search spans name, email, and phone; it says nothing about result limits, pagination, or what happens when no match is found.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the scoping qualifier at the end. No filler.

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 single-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, matched fields, and the business scope. Missing only result-set behavior (limits or empty-result handling), which is a minor gap for this tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden for the single `query` parameter. It does clarify that the query can match name, email, or phone, which is real added meaning, but gives no guidance on matching semantics (fuzzy vs. exact, multi-field strings, formatting).

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) plus the fields that can be matched (name, email, phone), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from find_estimates or the other lookup siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 phrase "for the business you picked" implies a required prior selection of a business context, which is useful scoping guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over find_estimates or the list_* siblings, nor any when-not conditions.

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