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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds the upstream endpoint (GET /customers) and a sketch of returned fields, but says nothing about pagination defaults, result ordering, or response envelope for a paginated collection.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler and the core purpose front-loaded. The parenthetical "info" is vague enough to be slightly wasteful, but overall nothing is padded.

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 and only a readOnly annotation, the description should carry more: pagination semantics, what "info" actually contains, and how results are ordered are all absent. The 5-parameter filter surface is fully documented in the schema, so the gap is mostly about return behavior rather than invocation.

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 100%, so q, name, page, per_page, and customer_number are all documented in the schema itself. The description's parenthetical mentions name and customer number but frames them as returned fields rather than filters, adding no syntax or behavior beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List customers") and hints at returned fields (name, customer number, info), which is enough to distinguish it from mutation siblings like craftboxx_create_customer. It does not explicitly contrast with craftboxx_get_customer, so a reader must rely on the list/get naming convention to separate the two.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative craftboxx_get_customer for single-record retrieval. The only signal is the verb "List", leaving the list-vs-get choice to inference.

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