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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the ordering (ranked by stamp visits) and enumerating the returned fields, which matters since there is no output schema. It stops short of noting that results are truncated by limit or sorted descending.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the ranking rule and then lists outputs; nothing is redundant. It is a fragment rather than a full clause, but readability is not harmed.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, ranking, and returned fields. The only omissions are pagination/limit behavior and sort direction, both minor for a list endpoint whose schema is self-documenting on defaults.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it only partially does: 'in a period' conveys the period parameter's meaning but not its allowed values or default, and the limit parameter is never mentioned. The enum and defaults in the schema fill part of the gap.

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 names a concrete resource (customers) and the ranking criterion (stamp visits within a period), and anchors it to a known UI location ('Regular customers list in Owner › Analytics'). That distinguishes it from the activity- or reward-oriented list siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied via the UI reference to Owner › Analytics; there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus list_recent_activity or list_near_reward, and no preconditions. An agent can infer the use case but is given no routing rules.

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