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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this as a safe read, and the description is consistent with it. It adds the underlying endpoint (POST /v1/customers:list) and the filter semantics, but says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or result volume beyond what the schema's page_size/page_token imply.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the resource and filters come first and the endpoint last. Slightly more efficient than needed but nothing 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?

A six-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and a readOnlyHint needs little more, but the description omits what the response contains (customer objects) and any pagination guidance for following nextPageToken. Adequate, not complete.

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, giving a baseline of 3. The description only restates the phone and updated-time filters and adds no format nuances beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('List pet-parent customers of a company') and names the two filter axes. It is clearly distinct from moego_get_customer and from moego_list_pets/leads, though it never explicitly contrasts with the nearest sibling list tools.

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?

The description indicates which filters exist (phone number, last update time), which implies usage, but it never says when to prefer this list over moego_get_customer (single lookup) or moego_list_leads. No exclusions or prerequisites stated; the company_id provenance hint lives in the schema, not the description.

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