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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: the default filtering-out of inactive records and the set of field groups returned, which an agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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, front-loaded with the verb and record type, then filters, then returns, then the one non-obvious exclusion rule. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

With nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description does the important work: it scopes the search dimensions and describes the returned fields. It omits pagination behavior and default limit, which live in the schema, leaving a small gap for a search endpoint.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning by expanding what 'text' searches ('name, city, e-mail ...') and by naming the returned field groups (address, bank, VAT id, payment terms), connecting filters to outcomes rather than restating the schema.

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 Collmex customers') and anchors it to the underlying record CUSTOMER_GET, then enumerates the filter dimensions (customer number, free text, postal code, country). It never explicitly says how it differs from sibling list_addresses or list_vendors, so an agent must infer the customer-vs-address split.

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?

The last sentence gives a real usage rule: inactive customers are excluded unless include_inactive is set. However, there is no guidance on when to call this versus collmex_list_addresses or collmex_create_customer, and no mention of prerequisites or pagination workflow.

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