get_customers

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation is read-only, and the description's 'List' is consistent. However, the description adds no further behavioral context such as return format, pagination defaults, or error handling. With the annotation covering safety, the description contributes little beyond the schema's parameter names.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the primary action and optional capabilities, making it exemplary in conciseness.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no required fields, the description is too sparse. It omits details about the response structure (e.g., whether it returns an array, pagination metadata) and does not explain search semantics. For a list tool, this is inadequate for reliable invocation.

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 must compensate by explaining the parameters. It only mentions 'optional pagination and search' without defining what 'page', 'limit', or 'search' mean or how they interact. This is insufficient for an agent to construct valid calls with confidence.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('customers'), and implies a plural collection operation, which distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_customer' (singular) and 'get_users' (different resource). It is unambiguous in its core function, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_customer' for a single record or 'get_customers' vs other list tools. The description only states what it does, leaving usage context entirely to the agent's inference.

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