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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so "Read-only" repeats structured data. The one real addition is "Resource permissions depend on your Shop Boss API key," which tells the agent failures may be authorization-related. It omits pagination behavior (page/pageSize), result ordering, and whether filters combine with AND logic.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the lookup keys come first. The second sentence's "Read-only" clause is slightly wasteful since annotations already cover it.

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 an 8-parameter listing tool with no output schema and near-zero schema coverage, this is under-specified: pagination limits (default 25, max 100), filter combination rules, and what "contact and account context" actually contains are all absent. An agent can call it, but may do so with wrong page expectations or stacked filters.

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 only 13% — shopId is the sole documented parameter out of 8. The description partly compensates by naming ID, name, email, and phone as lookup keys, but leaves firstName vs lastName vs partial matching, and page/pageSize entirely unaddressed, so the agent gets no help on the undocumented half.

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?

"Find customers by ID, name, email or phone" names a specific verb, resource, and lookup keys, which cleanly separates it from siblings like shopboss_list_vehicles or shopboss_list_repair_orders. It stops short of 5 because it never clarifies whether calling with no filters returns a full customer list or requires at least one criterion.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite context beyond a vague permission note, and never routes the agent to an alternative (e.g., a vehicle or repair-order lookup when starting from a customer). An agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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