Search customers

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that filters combine with AND, that name_contains is a prefix match due to QuickBooks only supporting a trailing wildcard, and that no-filter calls return the whole roster page by page. These are important behavioral details not visible from readOnlyHint or idempotentHint alone. The only redundancy is the 'Read-only' phrase, which echoes the annotation.

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 four compact sentences that front-load the core behavior and use cases. The QuickBooks wildcard constraint is explained concisely. However, the standalone 'Read-only.' sentence is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation, so not every sentence strictly earns its place.

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 a rich output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers everything needed for correct invocation: supported filters, AND combination, prefix-only matching, no-filter behavior, and pagination. There is no obvious operational gap that would cause an agent to call the tool incorrectly.

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 each parameter is already well-documented individually. The description adds interaction-level semantics: filters combine with AND, omitting all filters returns the full roster, and pagination uses max_results/start_position. This provides value beyond the per-parameter schema descriptions, pushing it above the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('customers') with three concrete filter dimensions: display-name prefix, exact email, and active flag. It also gives the operational purpose ('turn a name or email an agent was given into a customer Id'), which clearly distinguishes it from create/update/get/delete siblings. Even without explicitly naming list_customers, the purpose is unmistakable.

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 gives explicit use cases: resolving a name/email to a customer ID and checking for an existing record before calling create_customer. It also clarifies behavior with no filters (returns whole roster paginated). It does not explicitly name alternatives like list_customers or say when to prefer get_customer, so context is clear but exclusions are missing.

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