List customers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: which fields come back (id, name, archived, note) and that the whole list is returned at once with no paging — a real operational detail an agent must plan around. It omits auth requirements and ordering, keeping it below 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by usage, return shape, and paging behavior — no filler. The middle clause ("active ones or with `archived: true` the archived ones") is slightly awkward in construction but not wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's field list (id, name, archived, note) plus the no-paging disclosure cover what an agent needs to consume the result. For a single-optional-param read tool with annotations present, the remaining gaps (ordering, auth) are minor.

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% and the `archived` parameter already documents its default and effect, so the schema carries the load. The description's phrasing ("active ones or with `archived: true` the archived ones") restates the same semantics rather than adding format or edge-case detail, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Lists customers from mite") and immediately scopes it to active vs. archived, which distinguishes it from the other list_* siblings that target projects, services, users, and time entries. An agent knows exactly what it fetches without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to reach for it: to look up customer ids for filters like `customer_id` in `mite_list_time_entries`, which is a concrete downstream use and cross-references a sibling. It does not name a when-not condition or an alternative source for customer data, so not quite a 5.

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