aiva_search_customers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't address critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset but not explained), or what the output looks like. For a search tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be more structured by explicitly listing key parameters or usage scenarios. It avoids waste but might benefit from slightly more detail given the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (40%), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, output format, error conditions, or how to interpret results. For a search tool in a context with multiple sibling tools, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 40% (only 'query' and 'segment' have descriptions), so the description must compensate. It lists filtering by 'segment, subscription status, tags, and more', which partially maps to parameters but doesn't fully explain 'tags' (not in schema), 'limit', 'offset', or the enum values for 'subscriptionStatus'. It adds some value but doesn't adequately cover the 60% gap in schema documentation.

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 clearly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('customers'), and specifies filtering capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'aiva_get_customer' or 'aiva_list_subscriptions', which might also retrieve customer data. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'aiva_get_customer' (likely for single customer retrieval) and 'aiva_list_subscriptions' (which might include customer data), there's no indication of when this search tool is preferred or what scenarios it's designed for.

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