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

Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive/open-world, so the description wisely spends words elsewhere: the required read_customers scope and the exact endpoint. It doesn't discuss pagination or return shape, but the schema covers paging.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the auth requirement and endpoint. Nothing wasteful, though the phrasing is telegraphic and the raw endpoint path adds little for an agent.

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 paginated read with no output schema and full annotation coverage, this states the resource, the required permission, and where the data comes from. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the response shape is unaddressed.

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 page/limit/customer_id are fully documented in structured fields. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond 'one customer', so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Identifies the resource precisely ('saved addresses of one customer'), which clearly separates it from easystore_get_customer or easystore_list_customers. The verb 'list' is only implied from the name/title, not stated in the description.

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?

'Needs read_customers' gives a real precondition for calling it, and the customer-scoped resource implies when to use it. However, it names no alternatives or exclusions (e.g. when to prefer get_customer to read the full record), so routing is left partly to inference.

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