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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral qualifier that dormant records are excluded, which is the key selection behavior beyond the read-only annotation. It also conveys an intentional business meaning of 'active customers'.

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 one short sentence that is front-loaded and free of fluff. It doesn't repeat the title verbatim and every word contributes meaning. The only slight miss is not naming the sibling alternative in the same breath, which would have made it maximally useful.

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 doesn't explain return structure, but this is a list endpoint and the readOnlyHint covers side-effect expectations. The main gap is that it doesn't clarify the exact relationship to brc_list_customers, e.g., whether dormant means a field value or a status. For a list tool, the page/top/pageSize parameters are standard though.

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 50%, with companyName and connectionRef described in the schema, while top, page, skip, filter, orderBy, and pageSize have only type constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the 'without dormant' listing behavior. It doesn't explain that pagination parameters apply or that filter/orderBy are OData expressions, so some burden falls on the schema's defaults and constraints.

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 (lists) and resource (BRC customers without dormant records) and the title clarifies this is the active customers list. It differentiates from the plain brc_list_customers sibling by the 'without dormant' qualifier, though it doesn't name that sibling 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?

The name and title imply this is the variant to use when you want active/non-dormant customers only, versus brc_list_customers which presumably includes all. However, the description doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over brc_list_customers or any other sibling, leaving the choice to inference.

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