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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the required read_customers scope and the underlying GET /api/3.0/customers.json endpoint, which matters for auth planning. It stops short of describing pagination or result limits.

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 the returned fields, then filtering, then prerequisites and endpoint. No filler and nothing buried.

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 ten all-optional parameters fully covered by the schema and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates returned fields and the auth scope. The main gap is routing guidance versus the overlapping search_customers sibling.

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 all ten parameters (paging, sorting, date ranges, ids, since_id) are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the query parameter's behavior, adding nothing beyond the schema, which matches the baseline 3.

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 plus the fields returned (contact details, order count, total spent, groups, store credit), so an agent knows what it gets. It does not distinguish itself from the close sibling easystore_search_customers, and in fact advertises searching by name/email, which overlaps that sibling's apparent 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?

"Needs read_customers" and "Search by name or email with query" give implied usage context. There is no explicit when-to-use versus easystore_search_customers or easystore_get_customer, and no statement of when not to use it.

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