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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, which is counterintuitive for a create and left unexplained; the description adds the useful two-step workflow (email added separately), but says nothing about only customerType being required, permissions, duplicate handling, or what the call returns. Some value beyond annotations, but the behavioral picture is thin.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler. The trailing endpoint reference is marginal but harmless; overall appropriately sized.

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 18-property create with no output schema, the description should ideally say what the call returns (e.g., the new customer id) and note that only customerType is mandatory. It covers the workflow hand-off but leaves the agent to infer the response and required-field reality from the schema.

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 the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description's 'a person or a fleet account' phrasing loosely mirrors the customerType enum without adding format or constraint detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Create) and resource (customer), and explicitly disambiguates the two variants it produces: a person or a fleet account. It also names the sibling used to complete the workflow, so an agent can separate it from add_customer_email without opening either schema.

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 clear sequencing context – create the customer first, then add an email via shopmonkey_add_customer_email – which is real when-to-use guidance. It does not state exclusions (e.g., use find_customers_by_email first to avoid duplicates), so it falls short of a 5.

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