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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the returned columns (id, name, email, phone, city, lead_status), which matters because there is no output schema. No note on result ordering or truncation behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler: purpose, return shape, and the alternative routing hint are all front-loaded in that order.

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?

Given no output schema, listing the return fields is the right compensating move, and the geo alternative covers the main sibling ambiguity. Minor gaps remain: no distinction from lookup_customers and no mention of result ordering or pagination behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (limit, search) are already documented, including defaults and max. The description's 'by name or company' only loosely mirrors the schema's broader match scope (first/last name, company, email), adding nothing beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (find customers/leads) plus the match keys (name/company) and the returned fields. It partially differentiates from siblings by routing geo queries to search_freeform, but does not distinguish itself from the very similar lookup_customers sibling.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use search_freeform instead when filtering by geographic criteria (within N km, by city), which is a real routing decision. Beyond that one exclusion there is no guidance on when to prefer this over lookup_customers or segment_customers.

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