hcp_list_customer_addresses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully established and the description does not contradict any of it. The description adds the customer scoping and the cus_ prefix requirement, which is useful, but it does not disclose pagination, result limits, or any other runtime behavior beyond what annotations cover — a moderate value-add.

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?

One sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and the ID-format note tucked into a parenthetical. There is zero wasted wording, and every element earns its place for a simple read operation backed by rich annotations and an output schema.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with a full output schema and comprehensive safety annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is listed, for whom, and the expected ID format. Minor omissions such as pagination and limit behavior are minor given openWorldHint and the output schema's presence, so nothing materially blocks correct 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 schema provides only the title 'Customer Id' for the sole required parameter. The description compensates by specifying the cus_ prefix format, which is the critical semantic detail needed to call the tool correctly. It does not go further (e.g., that the customer must exist), but for a single-parameter tool, the prefix hint is meaningful compensation for the schema's silence.

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 specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('service addresses'), and a scope ('for a customer'), so an agent immediately knows what the tool returns. The parenthetical '(cus_ prefix)' adds a distinguishing detail about the expected ID format. Among siblings such as hcp_list_employees, hcp_list_leads, and hcp_get_company, none target addresses, so this tool is clearly differentiated.

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 intended use case is implied — call this when a customer's service addresses are needed — but the description offers no explicit when/when-not guidance, exclusions, or named alternatives. Since no sibling tool competes for the same task, the ambiguity is low, but the guidance is still left to inference rather than stated, which keeps this at a minimal-viable level.

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