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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't say whether related records (invoices, contracts, leads) are cascaded, whether the delete is soft or hard, or what the caller gets back on success or failure.

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?

One short sentence with no waste and the key information front-loaded. It is concise to the point of under-specification, but nothing in it is 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 destructive mutation with zero parameter documentation and no output schema, the agent needs to know the required key, cascade behavior, and confirmability of success. The description supplies none of these, leaving the definition materially incomplete for the risk level involved.

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 0% and both parameters are nullable with default null and required=0, so the schema alone leaves the agent unsure whether either key is mandatory. The description's 'by customer_id or customer_uuid' hints at an either/or relationship but never states which is required or which wins when both are supplied.

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 ('Delete a customer') and identifies the two keys accepted. That distinguishes it from edit_customer, get_customer, and list_customers by verb alone, though it never names those siblings or their boundaries 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?

There is no guidance on when deletion is appropriate versus edit_customer, no prerequisites such as required permissions, and no warning about irreversibility. The only usage signal is the implicit either/or keying, which the agent must infer.

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