tiendanube_list_customers

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses pagination, filtering by dates and text search, and return content (contact info, spending totals, order history). However, it does not mention rate limits, performance expectations, or that it is a read-only operation. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 very concise: a header with emoji and two clear sentences. It front-loads the purpose and uses simple, direct language. No redundancy or unnecessary details. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's capabilities (pagination, filtering, search) and expected output fields. It provides enough context for an agent to understand how to use the tool effectively, though it could mention default pagination limits or iteration patterns.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds slight value by summarizing filtering capabilities and mentioning 'identification' in search (not in schema's 'name or email') and specifying return fields. However, it mostly reiterates schema information, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Retrieve a paginated list of store customers' and specifies the resource 'customers'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like tiendanube_get_customer (single customer) and tiendanube_search_customers (search functionality) by emphasizing pagination and listing. The emoji and capitalization also aid quick recognition.

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 general use cases ('customer management, analytics, segmentation, and finding specific customers') but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like tiendanube_get_customer (for a single customer) or tiendanube_search_customers (which might have different query capabilities). Lacks guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives.

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