Six tools with basic schemas and descriptions, but significant quality gaps. All tools have descriptions (positive), but they are brief (avg ~40 chars, well below the 194-char baseline) and lack actionable context. Schemas present but minimal, parameters have types and descriptions, but no enums, constraints, or output schemas documented. No error handling guidance. Tool names follow verb_noun pattern (get_*, search_*, check_*) which is good, but descriptions are generic and do not explain WHEN to use each tool or what distinguishes them. No evidence of pagination, result limits, or chaining IDs in responses. Security context (after-sales, order data) suggests sensitive operations, but no permission gates or audit trail patterns visible.

• Expand tool descriptions to 100 - 200 chars. Include WHAT the tool does, WHEN to use it (vs similar tools), and what the response contains. Example: 'get_order_summary: Retrieve a concise summary of a customer's order (status, total, items count). Use this to answer questions about order details. Returns order_id, status, total_price, item_count.'
• Document output schemas for all tools. Specify which fields are returned, their types, and which IDs/references can be passed to downstream tools. This enables tool chaining and prevents LLM guessing.
• Add error handling guidance. For each tool, document: (1) what errors can occur (invalid order_ref, permission denied, not found), (2) whether they are retryable, (3) what the LLM should do next (e.g., 'If order not found, try search_orders() with customer email').
• Implement permission gates and audit logging. Verify the calling user/agent has read:order or read:after_sales scope before executing. Log tool calls with user ID, timestamp, parameters, and result for compliance and debugging.
• Add constraints to search_after_sales_policy. Define valid search fields (policy_type, coverage_period, claim_type) as enums or provide examples. Replace free-form 'query' with structured parameters to reduce hallucinated search terms.