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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the key behavioral traits. The description adds no extra context about side effects, rate limits, or return details, but it does not contradict the annotations. Given the annotations are present, the bar is lower, and the description is neutral.

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 very short, but it contains redundancy: the first sentence and the second sentence starting with 'Guidance:' are essentially the same. This duplication wastes words without adding information. It could be condensed to a single sentence, which would be more efficient.

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 list operation, the description is adequate but not rich. It does not mention that the tool returns a list of customer objects, nor does it explain pagination behavior or ordering. Since there is no output schema, a bit more context about the expected return could be helpful, but the core function is clear.

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?

Both parameters (page and per_page) have descriptions in the schema, so coverage is 100%. The descriptions are minimal but accurate: 'Page number.' and 'Number of customers displayed on each page.' The description does not add any extra detail such as defaults, minimums, or how pagination interacts with the result set, so it remains at the baseline for fully documented schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Returns the list of customers of your shop app.' This is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from other list tools like shop_list_orders or shop_list_products. The tool name itself reinforces the purpose.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as shop_get_customer for a single customer, or shop_list_prospects for prospects. There is no mention of scenarios where listing customers is appropriate, nor any indication of pagination usage or filters beyond the basic parameters.

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