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

Annotations already declare this as a safe read-only lookup with no destructive effects. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the breadth of returned data, including orders, invoices, tickets, and label stats, which helps the agent anticipate the response.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the core purpose and aggregates the returned data categories without 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 two-parameter read-only lookup without an output schema, the description gives enough detail about what the customer 360 view contains. The optional intentId correlation behavior is left entirely to the schema, 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%, so both the query and intentId parameters are already documented. The description confirms that query may be an email, company, or name, but adds little beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 names the specific resource (customer) and what the lookup returns: profile, recent orders, invoices, subscription, open tickets, and label stats. It is clear enough to distinguish this from narrower siblings like FindOrder or FindUser, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 identifiers it accepts (email, company, or name) and the aggregate customer view, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over FindUser, FindOrder, or InvoiceInvestigation.

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