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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds the useful chaining fact that results are ids for other tools, but omits matching semantics (exact vs substring), result caps, and whether partial identifiers resolve.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the searchable-field list is front-loaded before the return-value note. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, this covers purpose, inputs, and the nature of the return value. The only real gap is result behavior when a query is ambiguous or matches many customers.

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 schema alone gives no meaning for "query" beyond being a string of at least 2 characters. The description partially compensates by naming the fields the query matches (name, company, phone, email, address), but never clarifies whether one query string is matched against all of them or how multi-word or formatted inputs are handled.

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 ("Search customers") plus the five fields the search covers, which is enough to separate it from save_customer and from the other find_* tools that target estimates and invoices. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it lands just under the top mark.

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?

"Returns ids for other tools" implies this is a lookup step that feeds ids into downstream calls, which is genuine usage context an agent can act on. There is still no explicit when-not guidance, no statement about what to do when the search returns nothing or multiple matches, and no named alternative.

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