repairdesk_customers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'look up' which suggests a read-only operation, and the action enum (list/get) reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only semantics, nor does it mention pagination behavior or any permissions required. The description is adequate but leaves room for inference about side effects and constraints.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, it could include a bit more detail (e.g., mention of action modes) without losing conciseness, so it's not a perfect 5.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters including an action enum and pagination, yet the description does not explain the 'action' parameter, the difference between list and get, or how pagination works. It also doesn't address how 'customer_id' vs 'keyword' are used together. For a tool of this complexity, the description is incomplete and requires the agent to infer critical usage details from the schema alone.

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 schema description coverage is only 20% (only 'keyword' is described). The tool description adds partial meaning by mentioning name, phone, email, or ID, mapping roughly to 'keyword' and 'customer_id', but it does not explain the 'action' parameter, nor does it clarify how 'keyword' and 'customer_id' relate or when to use each. It also omits pagination parameters (page, pagesize). The description adds some value but insufficiently compensates for the low 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 action (look up) and resource (customers), and lists the search fields. It is distinct from sibling tools (tickets, invoices, etc.) which target different resources. However, it does not mention the 'action' parameter that distinguishes between listing and getting a single customer, leaving some ambiguity about the exact operation.

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 implies this tool is for customer lookup but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. Since siblings are for other resources, the use case is fairly obvious, yet there is no mention of scenarios like retrieving a specific customer vs. browsing all customers, which the action parameter addresses.

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