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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest: it discloses the response wrapper ({ addresses }), cursor-based pagination with default/max limits, and a non-obvious API constraint about cursors. It even cites the underlying REST endpoint, adding real behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then pagination rules and the endpoint. Dense and largely waste-free, though the IMPORTANT cursor rule partially repeats the schema description of `cursor`.

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 compensates by naming the return wrapper and explaining pagination cursor fields and limits. An agent has everything needed to call and page this tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents default 50 / max 250 and the cursor-alone rule the description restates. The description adds the response field name and pagination mechanics but little parameter meaning the schema lacks – baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('List customer addresses') and enumerates the filter scope (customer, ids, created/updated date ranges). It is trivially distinguishable from siblings like recharge_get_customer or recharge_list_orders without opening any schema.

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?

Explains how to page (pass limit, read next_cursor/previous_cursor) and gives the critical when-condition: on cursor requests only limit may accompany the cursor. No explicit when-not or alternative tool is named, but none exists among siblings, so the operational guidance is strong.

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