search_customers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does disclose that it returns a paginated list and that matching applies to email, phone, or name, which is useful. However, it omits details like ordering, case sensitivity, or whether matching is partial or exact, leaving some ambiguity.

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 single sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the action and target, and includes essential details (matching fields, pagination). There is no filler or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context: what it searches and that results are paginated. It does not explain return fields, but for a customer search this is likely inferable. It is complete for basic usage, though slightly more detail could enhance 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond the schema; the statement about matching email/phone/name is redundant with the query parameter's schema description. No additional insight is provided for the limit parameter.

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 uses the specific verb 'search' with the target 'customers', and clarifies the matching scope ('email, phone, name'), distinguishing it from list_customers and search_orders. This clearly articulates what the tool does and differentiates it from related sibling tools.

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 implies usage when you need to find customers by a query string, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like list_customers or get_customer. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so guidance is only implied.

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