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 adds the input constraints (3-character minimum, date format, comparison prefixes) and reveals the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about match semantics (prefix vs substring), how multiple filters combine, or whether an empty call returns everything. Useful additions, but the operation itself is not fully characterized.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the searchable attributes, then the input-format rules, then the endpoint. Nothing is padded, though the endpoint mention earns little for an agent.

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 13 all-optional parameters and a fully documented schema, the definition is adequate but leaves key questions open: whether multiple filters are ANDed, whether text matching is exact or partial, and how this differs from hiboutik_list_customers when no filter is supplied. No output schema exists, so return-shape uncertainty is expected, but match semantics should have been stated.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's cross-cutting rules (3-character minimum, yyyy-mm-dd dates, > < >= <= prefixes) largely restate what minLength and the regex patterns already encode. It also enumerates the text-search fields without covering loyalty_points or last_order_date.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Search customers") and then enumerates the searchable fields, so the agent knows exactly what this tool accepts. It does not name the nearest siblings (hiboutik_list_customers, hiboutik_get_customer), so the boundary between searching and listing is left implicit. Two schema parameters (loyalty_points, last_order_date) are not listed among the searchable fields, which slightly muddies the stated scope.

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?

Usage is only implied: the field list suggests "use this when you have a customer attribute to match on," and the 3-character minimum hints at how lookups work. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer hiboutik_list_customers (enumerate everything) or hiboutik_get_customer (fetch one by ID). No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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