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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety profile is covered. The description adds that filtering/sorting/paging are server-side and that emails and phone numbers are returned, which is genuine additional context. But it omits pagination defaults (e.g., what happens with no limit) and total-count behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return detail, then the underlying endpoint. Zero waste.

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?

Adequate for a read-only search tool with a rich schema and annotations covering safety. The main gap is the lack of routing guidance among the many customer-related siblings, but the core search behavior is fully described.

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%; the schema documents skip, limit, where, and orderBy in detail including examples. The description restates the server-side filter/sort/paging concept without adding syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the verb and resource: 'Search customers' with server-side filter, sort and paging. Distinguishes from find_customers_by_email/phone implicitly by describing generic filtering, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.

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?

Implies usage when the agent needs to filter/sort/page over customers, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs find_customers_by_email, find_customers_by_phone, or get_customer. The generic nature suggests broad search, but exclusions are not stated.

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