search_customers

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

Annotations already establish this as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context about free-text search fields, date format flexibility, and a hint to keep page size modest. It does not describe return behavior, but the output schema covers that; overall, moderate additional value.

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 compact docstring with a clear summary line followed by a structured list of arguments. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, with each line earning its place. Minor informality like 'whatever Fieldwork indexes' slightly reduces polish.

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 description thoroughly covers parameters, but lacks usage context compared to the 28 sibling tools. It does not mention output ordering, pagination behavior, or when to choose this over find_customer or search_customer_by_phone. Adequate for a parameter reference, but not a complete guide.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining all 8 parameters with formats, defaults, and meaning. For example, it specifies accepted date formats for start_date, end_date, and updated_after, and defines query as free-text. This is a strong, complete parameter explanation.

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 'Search Fieldwork customers' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It is a search operation on customer data, but does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like find_customer, get_customer, or search_customer_by_phone, so it misses the top score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives. It only lists parameters without any exclusions or typical use cases. Given the presence of similar search tools, this is a significant gap.

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