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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile for this read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that - nothing about match semantics (exact vs fuzzy), result limits, pagination, or what is returned - so it contributes little on this dimension.

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 filler, with the core capability stated first and the alternative second. Nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should be self-sufficient for a simple one-parameter lookup; it states purpose, matched fields, and the SQL alternative. The remaining gap is only secondary detail (match type, result caps), which is minor for this tool's complexity.

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%, so the description carries the burden, and it does explain the single 'search' parameter's semantics: the query matches on name, company, or email. That is meaningful value the schema does not provide, though it omits matching behavior (partial vs exact).

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource (search customers) plus the fields matched (name, company, email), so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similar sibling 'find_customers' or 'segment_customers', leaving a sibling-selection ambiguity.

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' names one alternative and the condition for preferring it, which is real guidance. But it offers no exclusions and gives no clue about when to use it versus the near-identical 'find_customers' sibling, so the routing guidance is only partial.

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