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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description only needs to add operational context — and it does: the API does not page, all matches come back, and results are truncated at the limit with the count of cut rows reported. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent calling a list endpoint needs and cannot infer from annotations.

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 tight sentences: what it returns, how to filter, then the important non-paging caveat, closing with the endpoint for reference. Nothing is redundant and the load-bearing constraint is placed before the boilerplate.

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 read-only, four-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the returned field set, the filtering behavior, and the truncation semantics — everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the reply. No material gap remains.

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 name, limit, is_deleted and is_enabled are already documented with bounds and defaults. The description reinforces name filtering and the truncation behavior of limit but adds no syntax, format or interplay detail beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 is right when the schema carries the load.

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 customers of the SafetyChain tenant) and enumerates the fields returned: ids, names, enabled flags, created/modified dates. It also names the filter and the underlying endpoint, so an agent can distinguish it from the singular safetychain_get_customer sibling 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?

The description makes the list-vs-get split reasonably clear by describing bulk retrieval with an optional name filter, and it tells the agent to expect all matches rather than a paginated crawl. It never explicitly says 'use safetychain_get_customer for a single record' or states prerequisites, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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