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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose two useful facts: no organisationId is required and it returns a user profile plus quick stats. It does not cover auth needs, rate limits, or whether results are truncated by limit, leaving a few gaps for an unannotated tool.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then routing guidance, then scope and return note. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully notes the return shape (profile and quick stats), and with no annotations it flags the organisationId independence. Minor gaps remain around the intentId workflow and how limit interacts with ranking, but the core calling context is present.

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%, so the schema already documents query, limit, and intentId. The description's restatement of 'email, company name, or person name' largely duplicates the query description without adding matching behavior or precedence rules, so 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 and resource ('Find a customer/user') and lists the identifier types that locate the record. It attempts differentiation by naming SearchUsers, but that is not one of the actual sibling tools (LookupCustomer is), so the routing help is partly aimed outside the visible toolset.

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?

'Prefer this over SearchUsers when you have a specific identifier' gives a clear when-to-use condition and names the alternative. It lacks exclusions against the real sibling LookupCustomer and gives no guidance on when the limit/intentId parameters matter.

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