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

The annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true`, `openWorldHint: true`, and `destructiveHint: false`, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the endpoint and returned customer fields, but does not mention pagination behavior or other operational details beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description is two short sentences plus the endpoint and is front-loaded with the core action and return scope. It contains no redundant or filler text.

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?

The description summarizes the customer fields returned, which is helpful because there is no output schema, and all parameters are covered by the schema. It is nearly complete for a read-only list tool, though it could mention pagination or clarify the distinction from `get_customer`.

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 all seven parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description repeats the filtering options at a high level but does not add syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema.

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?

The description uses a clear verb and resource: 'List or search customers', and specifies the returned data such as contact details, addresses, terms, sales rep and credit-hold flag. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling `sosinventory_get_customer`, but the list/search purpose is still clear.

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 implies usage by listing filterable fields such as name, email and update time, but it does not state when to choose this tool over `sosinventory_get_customer` or other siblings. The guidance is sufficient to understand filtering, but alternatives are left implicit.

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