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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true), so the description's added value is the disclosure of pagination behavior (30 per page), the exact-match filter semantics, and the endpoint reference. It stops short of covering rate limits or what the response envelope looks like.

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 core action and scope, then the two facts most likely to change agent behavior (exact matching, `only`), then the endpoint. No 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 12-parameter, no-required-arg read tool with no output schema, the description covers pagination, filter matching semantics and response-size control. It omits any mention of the `include` embedding option, but the schema documents that fully, so the gap is minor.

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, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: all filter fields are exact matches (the schema only says 'Exact' for name, phone and email, leaving billing_city, service_city, etc. ambiguous) and `only` is recommended for smaller/faster responses.

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 (list/search customers) and the page size, which cleanly separates it from kickserv_get_customer and kickserv_create_customer. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it lands just short of the top band.

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?

'Every filter is an exact match on that field' and 'Use `only` to keep the response small' are genuinely useful operating constraints, but there is no routing guidance telling the agent when to prefer this over kickserv_get_customer or the more targeted list_customer_jobs/list_customer_notes. Usage is implied rather than bounded.

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