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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this as a safe read, lowering the disclosure burden. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /customers/search) but says nothing about match semantics (partial vs exact, case sensitivity), result ordering, or whether pagination defaults apply — useful context this tool would benefit from.

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 sentences with the primary capability front-loaded; nothing is padded or buried. The endpoint reference is mildly redundant with the tool name but occupies little space.

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 three-parameter, single-required-field read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is close to sufficient — the agent knows what to pass and what gets matched. The remaining gap is return shape and pagination behavior, which the annotations do not cover.

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. The description earns an extra point by enumerating the fields the search_text parameter actually matches against (name, company, email, phone), which the schema only describes circularly as 'Text to search for.'

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 ('Search customers') plus the searchable fields (name, company, email, phone), which tells an agent exactly what is being matched. It does not distinguish itself from the close sibling locate2u_list_customers or locate2u_get_customer, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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: 'search by text' suggests using this when a query string is available rather than browsing, and the sibling list_customers is the natural alternative. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or prerequisite statement, and no mention of paging through results when the match set is large.

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