search_customers

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states what it searches but omits side effects, pagination, return format, or how additional parameters (like comment, agent_name) affect the search. The mention of '[query]' is unclear and does not explain behavior beyond the basic search.

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, concise and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the inclusion of '[query]' is confusing and could be misinterpreted. Slightly hindered by unclear reference to the query parameter.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to cover the many additional parameters (e.g., phone, comment, agent_name, tag_name, etc.) and does not describe the return value or any constraints. An agent cannot fully understand tool usage from this description alone.

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 high (89%), so the schema itself describes parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it implies searching by name/phone/email but does not explain the purpose of other parameters like limit, comment, agent_name, etc. It adds the context of searching in CRM and contacts, which is not in the schema, but overall value is limited.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Buscar' (search) and resource 'clientes' (customers), specifies search fields (nombre, telefono, email) and sources (CRM y contactos). It distinguishes from siblings like search_conversations or search_customer_comments by focusing on customers and their contact info.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusion cases or suggest sibling tools for other search purposes (e.g., search_customer_comments for comments, search_conversations for conversations). An agent lacks context for selection.

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