search_customer

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does state the operation is read-only ('Read') and scoped to the session, and it indicates there is no server-side filtering by instructing client-side filtering. However, it does not mention pagination, result size limits, or authentication/authorization requirements beyond the vague session-visibility phrase.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded purpose in the first, workflow in the second. No filler or redundant schema restatement.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and downstream usage. It might be slightly more explicit about returning all visible customers or about pagination, but the essential calling contract is present.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the schema conveys all there is. The description's advice about filtering returned objects and passing IDs is not parameter documentation but workflow guidance. Baseline 4 applies.

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 tool reads Customer objects visible to the session. The verb 'Read' plus the resource 'Customer objects' and the session-scope qualifier make the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with get_customer or other search_* siblings, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It provides a concrete usage pattern: fetch all visible customers, filter client-side, then pass selected IDs to pivot, set, or aggregate tools. This tells an agent when the tool fits in a workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_customer, so there are no exclusions.

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