list_customers

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by describing a listing operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: pagination mechanics ('use the 'after' parameter with the last ID'), default behavior ('use the maximum perPage by default'), and filtering capabilities. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but with annotations covering safety, this is sufficient.

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 efficiently structured in 4 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function, recommending a default, explaining filtering options, and detailing pagination/sorting. There's no redundant information, and key guidance is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place by adding practical value.

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's complexity (7 parameters, pagination, filtering), the description provides good context. With annotations covering read-only safety and 100% schema coverage for parameters, the description adds necessary behavioral details like pagination mechanics and default usage. The lack of an output schema is a minor gap, but the description compensates by explaining result structure indirectly through parameter guidance.

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 schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds some semantic context: it explains the purpose of filtering parameters ('filter customers by email, id, search...'), recommends default values ('use the maximum perPage by default'), and clarifies pagination usage. However, it doesn't provide significant additional meaning beyond what's already in the schema descriptions.

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's purpose: 'list customers in Paddle' with specific filtering capabilities. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_customer' (singular retrieval) by focusing on listing multiple customers with filtering options. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list_* tools (e.g., list_addresses, list_subscriptions) which might have similar patterns.

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 implicit usage guidance through parameter explanations (e.g., 'use the maximum perPage by default', 'use the 'after' parameter for pagination'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_customer' for single customer retrieval or 'search' for fuzzy matching. The guidance is practical but not comparative.

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