cyberqp_list_customers

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It makes the read-only nature explicit with 'List' and adds meaningful boundaries: metadata only, and never returns account passwords or OTP codes. It does not mention pagination behavior, but the schema covers pagination parameters.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The core action and scope are front-loaded, followed by a useful sensitive-data exclusion. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a low-complexity list tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it identifies scope, filters, and return content boundaries. Minor gaps include no explicit mention of pagination output format, but the page/limit parameters in the schema mitigate this.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'name' and 'directoryType' are filters but adds little beyond the schema. Pagination parameters are fully documented in the schema and need no additional explanation.

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 ('List customers visible to the authenticated CyberQP technician account') and clarifies the scope via metadata-only return. The description distinguishes this tool from account-focused siblings by emphasizing customer-level metadata and exclusion of passwords/OTP codes.

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?

Provides clear context: use for listing customers visible to the authenticated account, with filtering by directory type and name. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to select this tool over account/event/policy siblings.

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