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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the breadth of data returned, implying an aggregated read, but says nothing about read-only safety, permissions/authentication, rate limits, or whether the lookup is fuzzy or exact. It adds context but is not complete.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the verb and identifiers before the payload list. Nothing is wasted. The trailing 'label stats' is terse to the point of ambiguity, which keeps it just under a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values, and it does list the categories of data returned, which is the minimum needed. Missing are match behavior (what happens on ambiguous or zero results) and any sense of result size or structure.

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% – both 'query' and 'intentId' are documented in the schema. The description echoes the identifier types but adds no matching semantics (exact vs partial match, precedence when multiple customers match) or guidance on intentId. Baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource (customer) and the identifiers used to find it (email, company, name), then enumerates what the '360°' view contains: profile, orders, invoices, subscription, tickets, label stats. It is far more specific than a tautology. It does not, however, differentiate itself from any sibling, so it falls 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it has an email, company, or customer name and wants a consolidated view. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y', and no sibling is named even though the sibling list is long. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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