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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds the useful disclosure that results are ids meant to be fed into other tools, but says nothing about match behavior (partial vs exact), result ordering, or what happens when nothing matches.

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 with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the return-value note follows. Nothing repeats the name or title wastefully.

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 two-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials and even hints at the return shape via the downstream ids. Minor gaps remain around no-result behavior and pagination beyond the limit default, but nothing blocks a correct call.

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 both the query ('Part of the company name') and limit ('Default 25') are fully documented in the schema. The description restates the company-name filter but adds no extra semantics such as case sensitivity or substring anchoring, so it earns the baseline rather than more.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Finds customers') and the matching criterion ('by company name'), which distinguishes it from search_projects and search_tickets by resource type. It also names the downstream consumers of the returned ids, which further sharpens its role.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the way to resolve a customer to an id before calling project_budgets, list_invoices or list_quotations. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over another lookup route, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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