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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds essentially nothing behavioral — notably it omits that results default to active customers only (inactive are excluded unless status is set) and that results are paginated. That default-filter behavior is a real gotcha an agent should be told about.

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 with no waste, and the useful part (searchable fields) is placed after the resource identification. It is a sentence fragment lacking a verb, which costs it the top score but not much else.

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?

All four parameters are optional and fully documented in the schema, and rich annotations cover safety, so the description only needs light supplementation. It covers return contents and search fields but leaves out the active-by-default filtering and pagination expectations — the two things an agent is most likely to get wrong when calling it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so limit, cursor, search and status are all documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces the search parameter ('search by name, email or phone') and says nothing additional about status defaults or cursor semantics.

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 identifies the resource (store customers) and what comes back (email and phone), and adds search capability, but never states a verb such as 'list' or 'search' — that verb exists only in the title. The plural framing implies batch retrieval versus the sibling get_customer, but the distinction is never made explicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_customer (single lookup) or create_customer, and no guidance on the expected workflow (e.g., page through with cursor, narrow with search). The mention of searching by name, email or phone implies one usage pattern but is phrased as a capability, not a routing rule.

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