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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the required 'items.read' permission and the fact that organization scoping is implicit from auth, not a parameter.

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?

Four short sentences, no filler, with the auth prerequisite front-loaded. Slightly ragged ordering (permission before purpose) but nothing wasteful.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should say what a result looks like; '(name)' only half-does that. include_archived behavior and result shape remain unspecified, though the tool is simple enough that this is a modest 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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains that search matches name/account code, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about include_archived, leaving one of two parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 ('List customers') scoped to 'this organization', which clearly separates it from get_customer, create_customer, and list_suppliers. The '(name)' fragment hints at the returned field but is cryptic rather than informative.

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?

'Does not accept an organization id' and 'Search only matches name/account code' imply the intended usage but never explicitly contrast with get_customer (single lookup) or search_items. The agent can infer when to use it but must do the inference.

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