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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value: it discloses the search-match fields, the returned fields, and the auth requirement (Cotlet API key with app access). It omits pagination behavior despite a page parameter, so not a full 5.

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 what the tool returns, then search/match details, then workflow and auth notes. Slightly repetitive (search fields stated twice across sentences), but no significant waste.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description explains the return contents, searchable fields, and the credential requirement, which is enough to call it correctly. Missing pagination behavior across the page parameter is the only notable gap.

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 both params; the description largely restates the query semantics (name, email, phone, street address) already present in the schema and says nothing about page. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Identifies the resource (Kickserv customers/contacts), the searchable fields, and what is returned, and explicitly ties output to get_customer/create_job. The listing verb is only implied in the description (it appears in the title), so it falls short of a clean verb+resource statement, but it is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools.

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?

Provides downstream workflow guidance (pass customer_number to get_customer/create_job) but does not state when to use this listing tool versus alternatives like get_customer for a known number, or list_jobs/list_invoices. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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