find_customer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the one-match versus several-match result behavior and explicitly notes the email lookup limitation. However, it does not mention what happens when there are zero matches or whether any permissions are needed, leaving minor gaps.

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 exceptionally concise, using only three short lines to cover purpose, search keys, result behavior, and a limitation. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 relatively simple tool, an output schema, and clear sibling context, the description is largely complete. It covers the main behavioral nuance (single vs. multiple matches) and a critical limitation, though it omits the no-match case and the exact effect of the limit parameter.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions, but the description gives useful meaning to the 'query' parameter by listing valid search fields (name, phone, external id). The 'limit' parameter is not explained beyond its schema default, so the description only partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 tool finds a customer by name, phone, or external id, making the purpose and resource explicit. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like find_by_external_id by noting that no ServiceTitan id is needed, and clarifies it is customer-focused rather than job-focused.

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 conveys when to use this tool: when you have a name, phone, or external id rather than a ServiceTitan id. It also provides an explicit exclusion ('Email lookup is not supported'), which helps steer users away from unsupported inputs, though it does not name specific alternative tools for those cases.

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