pennylane_list_customers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only that results are filtered and paginated, which is mild extra context; it says nothing the annotations don't about permissions or result behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no wasted preamble. The second sentence is slightly generic ('consulter la base clients') but still earns its place as usage hint.

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?

With an output schema present, rich annotations and full parameter documentation, the description needn't explain return values or safety. It is complete enough to call the tool correctly; the only gap is routing versus sibling list/get tools.

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 alludes to filters and pagination but adds no syntax, defaults or enum detail beyond what each schema property already documents (name, sort, limit, cursor, customer_type).

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?

States a specific verb ('Liste') and resource ('clients'), and even scopes the resource to companies and individuals. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling list/get pairs such as pennylane_get_customer or pennylane_list_suppliers, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

'Utile pour consulter la base clients, rechercher un client par nom ou type' implies usage context but gives no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. use get_customer for a single record, list_suppliers for the other side of the ledger). Usage is inferable but never spelled out.

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