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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: exact vs. prefix matching rules, newest-first ordering, a 100-per-page cap with a next_cursor round-trip, and the Cotlet API key requirement. This is exactly the extra behavioral detail the annotations cannot express.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then matching rules, ordering, pagination, and auth. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.

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 does explain the key return value (the customer ID) plus pagination and auth, which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of saying whether full customer records are returned or only IDs, and doesn't cover the no-match case.

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, but the description adds genuine meaning: it clarifies match semantics across the fields ('email and names match exactly; company matches the start') and explains the cursor round-trip by naming the returned next_cursor and how to pass it back as cursor.

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 and resource (search Chargebee customers by email, company, or name) and frames the outcome precisely: it returns the customer ID that every other endpoint takes. This cleanly separates it from chargebee_get_customer, which presumably takes an ID rather than producing one.

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?

The phrase 'returns the customer ID that every other endpoint takes' gives clear context for when to reach for this tool (ID resolution before other calls), but it never names an alternative or states a when-not-to-use condition, so no explicit exclusion guidance.

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