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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: email search eagerly loads the Contact relation (emails, phones, addresses), and pagination is handled by passing next_url unchanged with other filters ignored. This is real operational context an agent would otherwise have to discover.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with purpose before behavior and endpoint. The field enumeration is slightly noisy but every sentence carries information; nothing is padded.

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 read-only, 9-parameter, fully documented list tool with no output schema, the description covers search intent, relation-loading side effects and pagination adequately. Return shape is left implicit, but that is the main remaining gap and is minor given the schema coverage.

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; baseline is 3. The description hints at filter semantics but muddies them by listing customerID, customerTypeID and createTime alongside name/company/email, none of which are input parameters — a small risk of the agent assuming they are filters.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Search customers") and names the searchable fields (name, company, email), making it clearly distinguishable from get_customer and create_customer. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 context is implied by "Search customers by name, company or email" and the next_url pagination note, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this list/search tool versus get_customer for a single lookup, nor any mention of archive filtering as a usage consideration. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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