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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and open-world, but the description adds two things they do not: full email addresses are deliberately not stored, and offset is the paging mechanism when the total exceeds limit. The no-invented-email instruction is a valuable guardrail; data freshness of imported records is still unstated.

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 field list, trigger condition, email caveat and paging note are front-loaded and earn their place. However the trailing boilerplate about MCP argument passing, structured content and free credits is generic platform text, not tool-specific, and dilutes the definition.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and ordering, and it explains pagination. For a read-only list tool the remaining gap is minor: how fresh the imported commerce data is and whether search is substring or prefix.

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 75%, so the schema carries most of the burden. The description meaningfully explains offset/limit paging, but the `search` parameter is never mentioned, so one of the three input fields has no semantics anywhere in the definition.

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?

States a specific resource (customers imported from a Stripe/commerce connection) and enumerates the exact fields returned, plus the sort order (newest first). An agent can distinguish it from store_orders, store_products and store_revenue without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: "Use this when the person asks for clients or customers," which maps colloquial phrasing to this tool. It stops short of naming the sibling to use for orders, products or revenue reporting, so routing among the store_* family is only implied.

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