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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the matchable fields; it does not disclose matching behavior (exact vs partial), result limits, or pagination, which are the traits an agent would still need.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the routing hint following. Every clause earns its place.

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 1-parameter, read-only lookup with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema to explain, the description is nearly sufficient. The only meaningful gap is the lack of guidance on result volume or behavior versus the find_customers sibling.

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 0% for the single 'search' parameter, so the description carries the burden. It does add real meaning by telling the agent the query matches name, company, or email, which is more than the bare schema provides, but it omits match semantics (substring, fuzzy, case sensitivity).

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 (Search) and resource (customers) and names the fields it matches on (name, company, email), so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not distinguish itself from the very similar sibling find_customers, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

"Use this instead of raw SQL for customer lookups" gives one explicit alternative and a reason to prefer this tool, which is useful routing guidance. However, it says nothing about when to choose this over the near-identical find_customers or segment_customers siblings, leaving the most important disambiguation to inference.

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