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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the pagination mechanic (next_query) and the underlying endpoint, but does not say whether results are capped, ordered, or how many pages are typical — modest added context beyond structured fields.

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 returned fields come first, then filters, then pagination. The trailing 'GET /api/v1/customers/{account}' is of marginal use to an agent and is the only sentence that does not clearly earn its place.

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 10 optional parameters, no output schema and no annotations gap, the description is adequate but thin: it never explains what a result item looks like beyond a field list, how next_query should be threaded, or why one would pick this over the search_customers sibling. Enough to call it, not enough to call it optimally.

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 one of the 10 parameters is already documented in the schema. The description's filter enumeration largely restates those fields without adding syntax or precedence rules beyond what the schema says (e.g. that customer_number ignores other filters). 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List customers') plus the fields returned (name, company, email, phone, addresses) and the filter dimensions. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tillhub_search_customers, which an agent must choose between, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the filter list suggests 'use this to browse/filter customers,' and 'Page with next_query' implies repeated calls. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no statement of when to prefer tillhub_search_customers or tillhub_get_customer instead.

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