Search Customers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns profiles with tier, lifetime value, and order counts, which is useful, but it does not explain search behavior (e.g., partial vs exact matching, case sensitivity, or empty result handling). This leaves some ambiguity about how the query is interpreted.

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 two concise sentences, front-loads the core action and resource, and includes the key return fields. No redundant or filler content.

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 simple search tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: it states what it searches, what it returns, and the key return fields. It lacks deeper behavioral details like pagination or matching rules, but the schema covers the limit parameter, and the description is sufficient for typical use.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters with descriptions and constraints. The tool description adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema states; it simply reiterates that search matches name, email, or customer ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('customer directory'), and further specifies the search keys (name, email, customer ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_order and list_products by focusing on customer lookup and listing the returned profile data.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose ('Search the customer directory'), which implies when to use it: whenever you need to find customers by identifiers. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but given the sibling list, this is a focused customer search tool with no obvious overlap.

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