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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the embeddable relationships (addresses, logs, carts, notes, orders, shipments, subscriptions) and the endpoint, but says nothing about result caps, rate limits, or what the vendor default for `with` is.

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 resource and returned fields before filtering and relationships. It is run-on but every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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 helpfully enumerates the returned fields and available relationships, which is the key missing context for a list tool. It leaves the page/next_page loop to the schema, which documents it adequately, so nearly everything needed to call it correctly is present.

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 every parameter is already documented; baseline is 3. The description restates the email/name filtering and adds a nested `addresses.city` filter example, which is mildly useful beyond the schema's own `customer.email__like` example, but otherwise adds no syntax or default detail.

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 ('List') and resource ('customers'), enumerates the returned fields, and discloses the backing endpoint (GET /v1/customers/). It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like cratejoy_get_customer, but 'list' vs 'get' plus the enumeration makes the scope inferable.

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?

Explains what can be filtered (email, name, or `filters`) and gives a filter example, which implies when to reach for it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer cratejoy_get_customer for a single record, nor any note about pagination workflow beyond what the schema's `page` description already says.

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