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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that results are paged and that a customer may or may not be attached to a site, but says nothing about volume, filtering limits, or what a page contains.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with the entity definition first and the paging note last; nothing is padded. It is terse to the point of being slightly elliptical, but every clause carries meaning.

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 read-only single-parameter list tool this is close to sufficient, and pagination is handled by the schema. However, with no output schema the description never indicates what fields a customer record contains, which is the main remaining gap for an agent deciding whether this call answers its question.

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% and the single 'page' parameter is thoroughly documented there, including the 100-per-page size and the next_page idiom. The description's 'Paged' only restates that. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Defines the resource precisely as 'Customers (contacts of the Project Management view)' and distinguishes it from adjacent entities like users and sites by naming the view it belongs to. The listing action itself is only carried by the tool name, not the description text, so it stops short of a full verb+resource statement.

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 reference to any of the many siblings (gocanvas_list_users, gocanvas_list_sites, gocanvas_get_reference_data) that an agent could confuse this with. 'Paged' hints at iteration but nothing states prerequisites or exclusions.

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