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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the customer-number sort order, the returned fields, page-based pagination with a cursor, and the requirement for a Cotlet API key with app access. It stops short of describing default page size behavior beyond what the schema says.

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 front-loaded with the resource and ordering, then usage and pagination, then auth. It is efficient, though the field list appears twice (once as 'number, name, currency and payment terms' and again in the return sentence), which is mild redundancy.

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 specifies the returned fields and their ordering, covers pagination, and notes the auth prerequisite. That is nearly everything an agent needs for a paginated read list, with only default behavior already covered by the schema.

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 the schema already documents name, limit and cursor thoroughly. The description reinforces the name-filter and cursor semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 conveys that this reads customer records from the e-conomic register and enumerates the fields involved, which lets an agent distinguish it from write-oriented siblings like e-conomic_create_customer or e-conomic_get_customer. The verb 'list' is implied by the register framing rather than stated outright, so it is slightly less sharp than it could be.

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?

It offers one concrete use case - 'Filter by name to find a match before creating a new one' - which hints at when this is preferable to create_customer, and it explains the pagination cursor. But it never explicitly contrasts with get_customer or says when a single-record lookup is the better choice, leaving usage largely implied.

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