listCustomers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool is read-only, provides the exact endpoint, mentions the rate limit (100 requests per 1m), and notes the aggregation source from transaction history. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the raw schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, but the multiple parentheticals create a slightly cluttered structure. The rate limit and read-only details could be formatted more cleanly, yet there is no fluff.

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?

Although the description conveys read-only status and rate limiting, it omits parameter semantics, default pagination behavior, sort field options, and search syntax. For an agent to call this tool correctly with the provided 5 parameters, the description is insufficient.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage across 5 parameters, and the description provides no explanation of limit, offset, search, sort_by, or sort_dir. An agent must guess at valid values, defaults, and semantics, which is a significant gap.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'customers', and clarifies the resource is 'aggregated from transaction history', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like getContacts or getCustomerByEmail. It also states the HTTP method GET, making the operation concrete.

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 does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It provides no comparativedirection among the many sibling list/get tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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