Search customers

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

No annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that matching is fuzzy and that the query is embedded as a path segment, but says nothing about ranking, result limits, tie-breaking, or return shape.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the endpoint and purpose. The raw REST path restates what the tool name already conveys, but nothing else is wasted.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the definition should explain top_k's role and the query constraints. Neither is present, so an agent cannot fully predict behavior from the definition 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters. The description reveals that query is a URL path parameter and that matching is fuzzy, but it entirely omits top_k (default 5, max 50) and the query's 2–200 character constraints.

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 (fuzzy search) and resource (customer records), which distinguishes it from exact-match siblings like get_customer. However it never names an alternative sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance versus get_customer or list_customer_products, and no mention of what makes a good query. The AIOTIC analogy hints at match behavior but gives no selection criteria.

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