Search Customers

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict these. The description adds only that matching customer records are returned, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, match semantics, or response structure—though these are less critical given the 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?

Two short sentences front-load the action and the searchable field list, then state the return value. There is no filler, redundant repetition of the schema, or unnecessary background.

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 read-only search tool with 10 optional, fully documented parameters and strong annotations, the description plus schema gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the explicit statement that matching customer records are returned, though the exact response shape is not described.

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 100%, and each parameter already documents whether it uses full or partial matching. The description merely lists the same searchable fields without adding meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high 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?

States a specific verb ('Search for') and resource ('customers'), and enumerates the searchable fields: name, contact name, phone, email, address, city, and zip/postal code. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_jobs, search_invoices, and search_estimates, and from direct lookup tools like get_customer_details.

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 makes the intended use clear: find customers by common identifying attributes. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, such as using get_customer_details when a customer ID is already known, so the agent must infer the boundary between search and direct lookup.

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