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

Adds four behavioral facts not present in the annotations: the required scope (customers:read), that only 'visible' customers are returned, that pagination is manual via next_page rather than automatic, and that totals are expensive and omitted unless requested. Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description builds on top of that rather than restating it.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact (scope, search semantics, auth, pagination/totals), with the core capability front-loaded. No filler or restatement of the title or schema.

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?

A read-only, non-destructive tool with no output schema and no nested objects; the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly except the limit cap and defaults. Adequate-to-strong given the tool's low complexity.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does for the two non-obvious ones: q's accepted search shapes (name, office email, exact numeric number) and include_total's default behavior. Page is implied by the next_page instruction, but limit is never mentioned and the page parameter's 1-1,000,000 range and defaults go undocumented.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Read one visible customer page') and immediately narrows what can be searched (name, office email, exact numeric customer number). This is clearly a paged customer list/search, implicitly distinct from salesbinder_get_customer and the list_invoices/list_items siblings, though no sibling is named 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?

Gives usable selection context: search by name or office email for fuzzy matching versus exact numeric customer number, plus an operational instruction to follow next_page manually. It lacks an explicit 'use get_customer instead when you have an ID' routing statement, which is the only meaningful gap.

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