search_customer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits: 'All filter fields are optional and match by equality' and results are 'scoped by the model-attached visibility policy'. However, it does not describe the return format, pagination, or behavior when no filters are supplied, leaving gaps.

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 two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the behavioral details are efficiently conveyed.

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 simple tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key semantics: optional equality filters and visibility scoping. It does not explicitly state that it returns a list of Customer objects, but the verb 'Search' implies a list. Given the low complexity, it is fairly complete, though explicit mention of the return structure would improve it.

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 must compensate. The statement that all filter fields are optional and match by equality adds meaning beyond the bare property names. However, it does not elaborate on each field beyond its name, and no additional details like allowed formats or examples are provided.

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 ('Search') and the resource ('Customer objects'), and adds context that a customer is 'of the merged company'. It clearly differentiates from other search tools by resource name, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as get_customer or aggregate_customer.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this search tool versus alternatives like get_customer or aggregate_customer. The only usage-related information is about filter optionality and equality matching, which pertains to parameter usage, not tool selection.

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