Find Customers by Name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by explaining the LIKE (partial-match) behavior and the static-column vs EAV distinction, which are behavioral nuances not present in annotations. However, it does not address openWorldHint (e.g., potential for unexpected result scope), but that is a minor gap given the annotations cover the critical safety aspects.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core function and immediately clarifying the alternative. Every sentence earns its place: the search action, the static-column note, and the routing to find_customer_by_email. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is complete for an agent to call correctly. It explains the search semantics, the data source, and the alternative tool, leaving no critical missing information. The tool's parameters are all documented in the schema, and the description adds the needed behavioral context.

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 100%, so all four parameters have clear descriptions in the input schema. The description adds little param-specific value beyond the schema—it reinforces the name parameter's LIKE behavior but does not explain limit/profile/magentoRoot beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 searches customer_entity by firstname, lastname, or full name using LIKE, and explicitly differentiates from find_customer_by_email for exact email searches. It also adds the technical clarification that these are static columns, not EAV, which further pinpoints the exact resource and behavior.

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 directly names the alternative tool (find_customer_by_email) and the condition that selects it ('For exact email'). It implicitly communicates when to use this tool (when you have a name, including partial names) and provides clear context about the search type, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke it versus siblings.

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