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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description only adds the HTTP verb/endpoint ('GET /customers'), with no note on result size, pagination behavior, or whether an empty search returns everything.

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 fragments, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with no filler. It is arguably terse to the point of omitting useful guidance, but 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?

For a five-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose and searchable fields, and pagination lives in the schema. It still says nothing about default result ordering, how results are returned, or how this relates to the many sibling list_* tools.

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 80%, so the page, limit, search and sort_dir parameters are already documented in structured data. The parenthetical field list adds a hint about what free-text search covers, but it is ambiguous whether 'status' and 'assigned user' are searchable or filterable, and no filter parameters actually exist in 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+resource (list or search customers) and enumerates the attributes covered (name, email, phone, address, status, assigned user), plus the underlying endpoint. It is clearly distinguishable from fieldpulse_get_customer, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'List or search' implies bulk retrieval / querying rather than single-record fetch, which lets an agent infer the split with fieldpulse_get_customer. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is stated.

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