Stream

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions pagination and that it returns a paginated list, which adds some behavioral context beyond basic listing. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'search' entails (e.g., filtering capabilities), making it insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every sentence directly contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 an output schema (which likely defines the return structure), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and two parameters, it should provide more context on usage, parameters, and behavior. The mention of pagination and listing is minimal but not fully adequate for this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions pagination but doesn't explain the 'page' and 'limit' parameters or their semantics (e.g., what values are valid, how pagination works). This leaves parameters largely undocumented, failing to add meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 verb ('List / search') and resource ('customers'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_customer' by indicating it returns multiple customers rather than a single one. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., 'list_products'), though the resource specificity helps.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_customer' for single customer retrieval or 'search_customers' if such a tool existed. It mentions pagination but doesn't specify when pagination is needed or how to handle large datasets, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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