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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it discloses the authentication requirement (Cotlet API key with app access) and the matching ambiguity (short fragment may return several, agent should ask), which genuinely informs invocation.

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?

It is front-loaded with the resource and scope, then moves to usage and caveats, so the most important information comes first. It is slightly dense in the closing sentences but no sentence is truly wasted.

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 takes on the return-value burden and does so by listing ID/name/status. Combined with usage, ambiguity, and auth guidance it is nearly complete; only pagination behavior (limit/cursor) is left entirely to the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema for the search parameter—clarifying it matches "the name as Acumatica shows it" and can return multiple results—while status semantics remain schema-only, so it earns one step above baseline.

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 states a specific verb (Lists) and resource (customers) with explicit scope ("in your Acumatica tenant") and enumerates the returned fields (ID, name, status). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like create_customer and list_vendors, so an agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

It gives concrete context: use the returned customer_id in create_ar_invoice and list_invoices, and it explains filter usage (name search or status). It stops short of naming an alternative/exclusion (e.g. use list_vendors for suppliers), so it is a strong 4 rather than a full 5.

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