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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the paged behavior and the return payload's fields, which annotations do not convey. It omits practical traits such as archived records being included by default (only visible in the schema) and is silent on rate limits or ordering defaults.

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 terse fragments; the returned-field list is front-loaded and the endpoint is appended as a compact anchor with zero filler. It is efficient to the point of being elliptical ('Customers with...' lacks a verb), but nothing is wasted.

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 usefully compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and the paged hint covers the main invocation concern; the schema handles all five optional parameters. The remaining gap is that it never says how to iterate (next_page) or that including archived records is optional.

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%, with page, page_size, sort_key, sort_order and include_archive all documented inline, including the archived-by-default caveat. The description only gestures at pagination via 'Paged' and adds no format or default detail beyond the schema, 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?

The description names the exact resource (customers) and enumerates the fields returned (display name, addresses, email, phone, tax number, receivable balance), so an agent knows what the call yields. It states the HTTP verb/path (GET /customers) and that results are paged. It stops short of distinguishing the list operation from the sibling jurnal_get_customer for a single record.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over jurnal_get_customer for a single record, or over jurnal_list_vendors for the payable-side counterpart. The 'Paged' note implies iteration but never tells the agent to follow next_page, nor when to filter versus archive. Usage must be inferred entirely.

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