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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description's burden is lower. It still adds real context beyond them: the exact scope of what gets matched, that results are ids intended for a follow-up fetch call, and an explicit exclusion that customer data is out of scope.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the scope of the search front-loaded and the return-value note follow-up. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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 one-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description does enough: it defines the searched corpus, the matched fields, and that ids come back for a subsequent fetch. Only the result ordering/limit behavior is unspecified, which is a minor gap.

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 100% for the single query parameter, so baseline would be 3. The description earns above baseline by naming the fields the query matches against (name, reward, terms), which tells the agent what kinds of keywords will actually hit.

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 ('Searches') plus the resources ('the shop's programs and branches') and the matchable fields ('name, reward or terms'), which distinguishes it from the sibling list_programs/list_branches enumerators. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 clause 'Returns ids for fetch' gives a useful follow-up workflow hint, and 'Customer data is never searched' rules out one misuse. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over list_programs, list_branches, or list_regular_customers, leaving the alternative-selection decision to inference.

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