GET /customers (Customer)

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: items defined as arrays accept multiple comma-separated values, and the tool has two pagination modes depending on whether 'limit' is provided. This gives practical behavioral transparency without contradicting annotations.

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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose (paginated listing). The rest provides essential usage details and a warning. However, it includes a vague reference to an example that might not be universally understood, slightly reducing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers pagination behavior and array filtering but lacks details about the response format (e.g., pagination metadata, structure of customer objects). The reference to an example is helpful but insufficient. A more complete description would explain what the API returns.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: the 'limit' parameter is mandatory for the new pagination, and array-type parameters accept multiple comma-separated values. While the schema already includes similar text for id and companyId, the emphasis on 'limit' being required for new pagination is an important addition that enhances parameter understanding.

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 the tool's purpose as a paginated listing of customers. The verb 'Listagem' (listing) and resource 'clientes' (customers) are specific and unambiguous. The name 'list_customers' itself distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_customer or 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 usage context: it is a paginated listing tool. It gives explicit instructions about the 'limit' parameter being mandatory for the new pagination model and warns about upcoming deprecation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, so it is slightly below top tier.

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