List Atera customers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. The mention of 'Atera pagination' adds a minor behavioral hint that the tool returns paginated results, but it doesn't clarify page size limits or how pagination is signaled. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste. It names the operation and adds the pagination qualifier, which is front-loaded and efficient. No unnecessary filler.

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 simple read-only list tool with no required parameters and an output schema absent, the description plus annotations are mostly sufficient. The main gap is that it doesn't explain what customer fields are returned or any list-specific behavior beyond 'Atera pagination'. Given low complexity, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 carries some burden, but the tool has only two self-explanatory parameters, page and itemsInPage. The phrase 'Atera pagination' hints that these params control paging, but it doesn't explain that itemsInPage is capped at 100 (which the schema does show). Baseline 3 is fair since the schema is minimal and the parameter names are intuitive.

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 states the verb 'list' and the resource 'customer records', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like atera_customers_get (get a single customer). Minor weakness: it doesn't mention the context or what the list is meant for, but purpose is clear enough.

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 a paginated listing operation, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of atera_customers_get or other list tools. The sibling list helps an agent infer, but there is no explicit when-to-use or alternative routing.

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