advbox_list_customers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by mentioning pagination, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, default sorting, filter combination behavior, or response shape beyond 'paginated results', leaving notable gaps for a tool with 14 optional parameters.

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, concise, and front-loaded. It conveys the resource, capability, and key feature (paginated results) without wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 14 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is relatively thin. It mentions filtering and pagination but does not explain how filters combine, whether results have a default order, or what the response includes. The schema covers parameter semantics, so the description is minimally viable but not fully complete for such a complex listing tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds only a high-level summary of filters (name, phone, email, location, creation date) and does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already describes for each parameter.

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 lists customers from Advbox, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('customers'), and mentions the primary capabilities (filtering, pagination). It distinguishes itself from siblings like advbox_get_customer (single customer retrieval) and advbox_create_customer (creation) by explicitly indicating a multi-record listing function.

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 implies use for customer listing with filtering and pagination, which is clear for selecting this over get_customer or create_customer. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions but provides adequate context.

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