customers_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (searches customers) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as case sensitivity, pagination limits, error conditions, or whether it requires a specific provider. This is a significant gap for a tool that may behave differently across e-commerce platforms.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no waste and is easy to parse quickly.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It does not provide usage guidance or behavioral details, and it fails to mention the required provider parameter or how results are returned. For a search tool in a family of customer tools, more context on when to use it and what to expect would improve completeness.

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 parameters (limit, query, provider) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds the semantic that query searches across name, email, or phone, which is already partially captured in the query parameter description. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the description provides marginal added value, consistent with the baseline of 3.

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 'Busca clientes por nombre, email o teléfono' clearly states the tool's purpose: searching customers by specific attributes (name, email, phone). It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like customers_list (which lists all customers) and customers_get (which retrieves a single 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?

The description implies usage as a search function for customers, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as customers_list or customers_get. No explicit when/when-not or alternative comparisons are provided, though the purpose implies a search-by-query scenario.

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