get_customer_merge_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'fetch', which implies a read operation, but it doesn't state that it returns a paginated list, how status filtering works, or any other behavior. The schema hints at pagination but the description adds no behavioral context.

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 short phrase, which is not verbose, but it's essentially a restatement of the tool name. It doesn't earn its place by adding any new information; it could be removed without losing clarity, making it redundant rather than concise.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns and any pagination behavior. It fails to do so—'Fetch customer merge requests' doesn't indicate that it returns a list, that results are paginated, or that the status filter is available. The schema fills in some gaps, but the description alone is insufficient for complete understanding.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (after, first, status), covering 100% of parameter semantics. The description itself adds no parameter-related meaning, but since the schema is thorough, 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 uses a clear verb ('fetch') and resource ('customer merge requests'), making its purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't add any distinguishing scope or context beyond the tool name itself, so it doesn't fully differentiate from sibling tools like request_customer_merge.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention whether it should be used to list pending merge requests, check merge status, or distinguish from other customer-related endpoints. There's no context or exclusion criteria.

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