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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description usefully adds that certain fields are deferred and must be pulled in via expand, naming concrete examples (field_values, credit_balance, sms_account). It omits pagination behavior, default page size, and what the response looks like, but the deferred-field disclosure is genuine value beyond the annotations.

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?

Three tightly written sentences that front-load the core purpose and then layer filters and expand. The trailing 'TeamUp: GET /customers.' is minor API-mapping context rather than filler.

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 13-parameter, zero-required, no-output-schema list tool, the description covers the filter surface and the expand mechanism but says nothing about return shape, pagination defaults, or result limits. Adequate for invoking the tool, incomplete for predicting its output.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters with descriptions. The description's filter summary and expand note largely restate schema content without adding format or syntax detail (e.g., how 'null' status works or how dot-nesting is specified). Baseline 3 applies.

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 pair (search and list) plus the resource (customers), and clarifies scope with '(members and leads)' so the agent knows leads are included. It is clearly distinguishable from get_customer and list_customer_memberships by the free-text/filter framing, though it never names a sibling.

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 filtering vocabulary ('Filter by free text, CRM status, active memberships, age or family') implies when this tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or statement of when to prefer get_customer or list_customer_memberships. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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