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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, does not disclose pagination or default limit behavior, and does not explain what include_archived defaults to or what permissions are required. The output schema covers return shape, but key behavioral traits are left implicit.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately terse for a search tool, though the terseness comes partly from under-specification rather than pure efficiency.

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 four-parameter search tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the definition is incomplete. It should at minimum state read-only safety, default limit behavior, archived inclusion semantics, and when to prefer this over listing tools. The output schema helps with return values, but the calling contract is thin.

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%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains that q searches across name, company, email, phone, and property address, which adds real meaning. However, it says nothing about limit, shop_id, or include_archived, leaving three of four parameters undocumented.

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 ('Find') and resource ('customers'), and lists the fields searched by the query, which distinguishes it from a plain listing tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like customers_list or customers_get, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this search over customers_list, customers_get, or customers_duplicates. The 'find by' phrasing implies it is for lookup, but an agent has to infer the selection rule rather than being told.

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