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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: results are ordered newest first and can be filtered. It does not mention pagination behavior, despite cursor and limit parameters, nor does it explicitly state that this is a read-only listing operation.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence fragment with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the resource, ordering, and filters, though it is slightly telegraphic rather than fully structured prose.

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 list tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core listing behavior and filters. It remains thin on pagination and parameter requirements, but the output schema handles return values and the schema types handle basic parameter constraints.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names and explains the tag, lead_source, archived, and shop filtering semantics, but omits any explanation of limit and cursor, leaving pagination parameters undocumented beyond their schema types.

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 clearly identifies the resource (customers of a shop), the ordering (newest first), and the available filters (tag, lead source, archived). This is enough to understand the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools such as customers_search or customers_get.

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 filter list implies usage for browsing or filtering customers by tag, lead source, or archived status. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus customers_search, customers_get, or other customer tools, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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