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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by naming the fields returned and the underlying endpoint (GET /customers), which matters because no output schema exists.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the capability and returned data, then the search modes, then the endpoint. Nothing is redundant.

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 7 optional parameters, no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers purpose, return attributes and search semantics well enough to call the tool. Minor gaps remain around how sort_col/sort_dir and location_id interact with search, but the schema already carries those details.

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 limit, offset, sort_col, sort_dir, location_id and search_field are all documented in the schema. The description only restates the search_field enum values already present in the schema and says nothing new about sort, location scoping, or the search/search_field interaction, so it sits at the baseline.

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 or search customers') and enumerates the returned attributes (contact details, tier, store-account balance, credit limit, loyalty points), which makes the tool's scope concrete. It is distinguishable from the singular phppos_get_customer by the plural 'list/search' framing, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

'Search by text or by one field' gives real guidance on the two mutually exclusive search modes and lists the exact fields valid for search_field. It stops short of routing the agent between list vs. get_customer vs. update_customer, but the operating context is clear.

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