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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior not in the schema: a fixed page size of 50 and the fact that the returned id is consumed downstream. It omits what an unqueried call returns and whether further pages exist beyond page 1.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the searchable-field list comes first and the downstream id hand-off last. Every clause carries information an 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 two-parameter, output-schema-less lookup tool the essentials are present: what can be searched, page size, and how the result is reused. But with zero required parameters, the description never says whether an empty query lists all customers or returns nothing, and it gives no sense of total counts or result limits.

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 parameters, and it does: the parenthetical maps q to the four searchable fields, and "50 je Seite" gives page its meaning. It stops short of stating whether page is 1-based or what the default page is.

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 ("durchsuchen") and resource ("Kundenkartei") and enumerates the searchable fields, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_customer, which an agent could equally reach for when looking up a customer.

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 field list and by the note that the returned id feeds create_document as customer_id, which hints at a lookup-then-create workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when get_customer is the better choice, and no guidance on calling with an empty q.

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