Search PowerOffice customers

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

Annotations already provide readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive signals; the description adds useful behavior beyond those: the endpoint is paginated, multi-value filters follow PowerOffice comma-separated syntax, and response fields are compact unless Fields is supplied. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the core action and endpoint, then pack filter syntax and response default into the remaining space. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 14-parameter search tool, this is reasonably complete: it covers endpoint, pagination, filter syntax, and default field selection, while annotations and output schema cover safety and return value shape. It could add filter-combination semantics or examples for the ambiguous parameters, leaving minor gaps.

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 covers about 71% of parameters, and the description adds a meaningful default for fields (compact field set unless supplied) plus a general rule for multi-value filter parameters. A few parameters such as useDatabaseValidation remain unexplained, so it is not a 5.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read a paginated list from GET /Customers.' It clearly identifies this as a list/search operation over customers, and the plural 'list' differentiates it from sibling get_customer without ambiguity.

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 establishes clear usage context: an agent should call this when it needs a paginated, filterable list of customers, and the compact-field behavior is stated. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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