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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; 'Changes nothing' merely restates destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful scope ('people who bought from the merchant') but says nothing about per-business authorization needs or that results are scoped to one page.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the primary purpose leads. The parenthetical limit range duplicates the schema and the closing 'Changes nothing' is redundant with the annotations, so it is not perfectly lean.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields (email, name, country, customer id), which is the key missing structured information. For a two-optional-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient, though pagination behavior (no cursor/offset parameter exists) and acting-identity effects are unaddressed.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description repeats the limit range (1 to 100) without adding new meaning and never mentions the 'business' parameter that switches the acting identity.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List customers') and clarifies the scope as 'the people who bought from the merchant', which is distinct from sibling list tools such as agenta_products_list or agenta_invoices_list. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g. looking up a single customer or listing invoices), nor any stated prerequisites such as required authorization for the business being queried. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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