ClockNext: list customers

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavioral details: results are ordered most-recent first and are cursor-paginated. This discloses pagination and ordering behavior that annotations do not cover. The description is consistent with annotations; no contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence carries purpose or usage guidance. No wasted words or repetition of schema details.

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 list/search tool with three optional params and no output schema, the description adequately covers behavior (ordering, pagination) and use case. It could mention what fields are returned or that pagination uses a nextCursor, but the overall context is complete for typical agent invocation.

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 the schema already explains all three parameters (q, limit, cursor). The description's mention of 'search' and 'cursor-paginated' slightly reinforces the schema but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('List / search the org's customers') with resource and scope, and adds the distinguishing purpose of finding a customer ID or checking existence before creation. This differentiates it from siblings like get_customer (single fetch) and create_customer.

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 provides explicit use-case guidance ('Use it to find a customer id or check whether one already exists before creating'), indicating when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to choose it over related tools.

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