Список клиентов

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, but the description goes well beyond them: it guarantees no creation or mutation, names graphql_request as the only mutation path for personal data, discloses the required OAuth scope, and explains the cursor-based pagination contract (hasNextPage/endCursor → after). This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: return shape, pagination protocol, and safety/scope. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition of obvious facts.

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 paginated list tool with query-filter syntax and no output schema, the description covers all essentials: page contents, count semantics, cursor mechanics, query examples, side-effect guarantees, and required scope. An agent can invoke this tool correctly without needing to inspect the schema or sibling tools.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description still adds value by explaining the pagination round-trip (response endCursor becomes the next call's after) and by illustrating the query field syntax. This goes slightly beyond the static parameter descriptions, which warrants a 4 rather than a baseline 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Возвращает страницу клиентов' plus the exact fields returned (name, email, phone, order count, total spent, city). This clearly distinguishes it from get_customer (which fetches a single customer) and from list_products/list_orders. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives concrete usage context: cursor pagination flow, query string formats, and the read_customers scope requirement. It also explicitly states this tool does not create or modify customers and that modifications go through graphql_request. It does not explicitly say 'use get_customer for a single customer', but the list-vs-get distinction is strongly implied by the sibling names.

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