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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description is not obligated to restate them. It does add genuine context beyond them: pagination behavior ('Pages hold up to 50 customers; pass next_cursor back as cursor'), the domain rule that only a number in the Mobile field can receive texts, and the Cotlet API-key authorization requirement.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then return shape, domain nuance, pagination, and auth in a logical order. It is five sentences with little waste, though the mobile-number explanation and auth note could be tightened slightly.

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 helpfully enumerates the return fields (name, email, phone numbers, each service address) and covers pagination and auth. It is nearly complete for a read tool; the only omission is clarifying list-vs-search behavior when no query is supplied.

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 schema already documents all four parameters (baseline 3). The description adds value by explaining the cursor round-trip ('pass next_cursor back as cursor for the next page') and the 50-per-page ceiling that maps to the limit parameter, going modestly beyond the schema.

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 customers by name, email, phone or address, with their service addresses') and describes the returned profile fields. It is clearly distinguishable from the write-oriented sibling housecall-pro_create_customer. The only mild gap is the name/description tension between 'list' and 'search' (it never says whether omitting the optional query returns all customers), so it stops short of a perfect 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 via the analogy 'as the customer search on a new job does,' which gives a rough mental model but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions. No alternatives (e.g., create_customer, get_job) are named and no prerequisites beyond the API key are given. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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