list_customers_by_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns 'basic profile info', implying a read-only operation and summarizing the output. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or potential limitations, but for a simple list-by-status tool this is sufficient. The description is honest and does not contradict any annotations (there are none).

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 concise sentences: the first delivers the core action and valid values, the second states the return type and provides query examples. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose and contains zero filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, valid inputs, return nature, and usage examples. It does not mention pagination or any edge cases, but given the simplicity of the operation, this is adequate. A 5 would require addressing potential limitations or more specific return details, which are not critical here.

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% — the single 'status' parameter already has an enum and a clear description. The description repeats the valid statuses and gives usage examples, which adds a little context but does not provide new semantic meaning beyond what the schema declares. This matches the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('all customers'), and the specific filter ('with a given status'). It also gives concrete example queries, which makes the purpose unambiguous. The verb 'list' distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_customers (search) and get_customer_details (single customer), so an agent can easily tell them apart.

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 usage context with example questions ('show me all active customers', 'which customers have churned?'), telling the agent when to invoke this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_customers or get_customer_details, so it stops short of the full 5.

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