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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact the annotations do not carry — 'Needs an agent token' — but says nothing about pagination limits, result caps, or rate limiting beyond what the schema states.

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 the purpose, then the auth prerequisite, then the endpoint. Nothing is padded and each clause carries distinct information.

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 read-only search with fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, auth, and endpoint. With no output schema, it could say more about the response shape (e.g. that results are paged with a next_page token), though the page parameter's schema text partly compensates.

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 page, per_page and query are already documented (including the next_page pagination hint). The description only marginally extends this by noting domain is searchable, where the schema example mentions just an organization name. 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search customer organizations') plus the searchable fields (name, domain), so it is clearly distinct from get_organization or list_organizations. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 verb 'Search ... by name or domain' implies the lookup use case, and the required 'query' makes the intent reasonably obvious. However, it never says when to prefer this over zammad_list_organizations or zammad_get_organization, and gives no guidance on query construction or empty-result handling.

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