customer

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'query' implies a read operation, the description does not confirm safety, nor does it explain the dual pagination variables (after/first and after1/first1) or the return format. This leaves significant behavioral assumptions unstated.

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 brief and not overly verbose, but its structure is poor: the leading 'Customer ·' is redundant, and the variable listing plus example is presented without clear organization. It is not concise in the sense of being well-structured, but it is short enough to merit a middle score.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must explain the return value, pagination semantics, and parameter roles. It fails to state whether this returns a single customer or a list, the meaning of the two pagination pairs, or the role of customer_slug. This is a significant gap for a query tool.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, but the field descriptions are redundant ('GraphQL: String'). The description adds an example with actual cursor and count values, which provides minimal syntax guidance, but it omits customer_slug and does not explain the purpose of the second pagination set. It adds marginal value, so the baseline of 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 states the tool is for 'query customer', which is a clear verb+resource, but it does not specify what the query returns (single customer vs list), how it is filtered, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'customers'. This ambiguity weakens its purpose clarity.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided for when to use this tool over alternatives. The description only lists variables and an example, without any context about appropriate use cases or exclusions, making it hard for an agent to decide between this and similar query tools.

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