rc_list_customers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses pagination behavior and implies that project_id can be omitted via environment variable (from schema). However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or safety (e.g., read-only hint), leaving gaps.

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 long with no extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description covers purpose and pagination but lacks details on response format, error handling, or what constitutes a 'customer.' This is adequate but may leave some agent users uncertain about the data returned.

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 only 33% (only project_id described). The description adds value for starting_after by explaining its function in pagination. For limit, no additional info is provided. This partially compensates for the low 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 'List customers in a RevenueCat project,' which specifies the verb (list) and resource (customers). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rc_list_projects or rc_list_apps.

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 pagination guidance ('Paginate with starting_after (id of last item)'), which helps in using the tool effectively. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, though siblings target different entities, so context is clear.

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