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's added value is what data actually comes back (addresses and a loyalty activity summary with points and VIP tier) plus the V3 dashboard prerequisite. There is no output schema, so this return-content disclosure matters more here; absence of pagination and rate-limit commentary is a minor gap covered partly by the schema's page/limit docs.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the optionality note, then the API version/endpoint. The parenthetical field list is dense but every item earns its place by telling the agent what the records contain.

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 17-parameter, all-optional list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what comes back, that no filter is required, and the platform precondition. It lacks guidance on result ordering or filter combination behavior, which an agent forming complex queries might want.

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%, so all 17 parameters are already documented with types, bounds and meaning. The description adds only the meta-statement that every filter is optional and hints at filterable dimensions (email, name, tags, loyalty), which is baseline-level value over the schema, not new syntax or semantics.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Filter and list customer records') and enumerates the record shape (email, name, tags, addresses, loyalty points/VIP tier), which is more than a restatement of the title. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like stamped_get_customer or stamped_lookup_customer, leaving the agent to infer list-vs-single from the name alone.

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?

'All filters are optional' tells the agent it can call with no arguments to enumerate everything, and the 'only for shops on the Stamped Loyalty 2.0 dashboard' constraint is a genuine eligibility gate that prevents wasted calls. However, no alternative tool is named for single-customer retrieval or for non-2.0 shops, so the when-not path is implied rather than stated.

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