Get Instances Customers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of how results are ordered, whether pagination is cursor- or offset-based despite both being supported, or what the response contains.

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 words are not wasteful in themselves, but the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. There is no front-loaded scope statement because there is no scope content at all.

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 an 11-parameter list endpoint with no output schema, a vague two-word description leaves an agent unable to know what filters combine, how the two pagination styles interact, or what a returned customer looks like. Annotations cover safety but not the operational details an agent needs to call this correctly.

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?

With 11 parameters and only 36% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining limit/offset/ending_before/starting_after interplay and the filter fields (status, country, full_name, customer_id, bank_account_id) — but it explains none of them. Undocumented enum and filter behavior is left entirely ambiguous.

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?

"Retrieve Customers" names a verb and a resource, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name/title and adds no scope. It does not say whether this lists customers within an instance, what filters are supported, or how it differs from the many sibling customer tools (GetV1InstancesCustomersById, PostV1InstancesCustomers).

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of pagination or filtering expectations, and no reference to alternatives such as the by-ID variant. The only hint is the instance_id requirement, which comes from the schema, not the description.

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