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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing what comes back (contact details, status, last invoice date) and the underlying endpoint (GET /customers), which is real added value for a tool with no output schema. It omits pagination behavior, but the schema covers page/per_page defaults.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and the domain definition, closed with the endpoint for API mapping. No filler.

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 a 13-parameter list tool with no output schema, mentioning returned fields is the right instinct and partly fills the gap. But it stays silent on the undocumented filter parameters (location fields, pagination semantics) that an agent would need to use the tool well.

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 62% across 13 parameters, and the description names no parameter at all — only 'status' appears, and only as a returned field, not as a filter. With roughly a third of parameters undocumented and no compensating text, the description adds essentially nothing 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?

Specific verb (list/search) plus resource (customers), and it defines the domain term: 'the billed profiles: families (with child students) and independent students.' That definition implicitly separates it from teachworks_list_students, 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?

Usage is implied by 'List or search customers' and the searchable field coverage, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as teachworks_get_customer for a single lookup or teachworks_list_students for student-level data.

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