List Customers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds valuable context about pagination behavior and the return payload (customers with identifier, name, contact/address details), going beyond the annotations and schema.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a clear argument list, and a returns summary. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema but is organized and easy to scan, making it useful in a tool description context.

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?

There's no output schema, so the description's return details ('identifier, name and contact/address details') are essential and provided. It also covers pagination and defaults. For a read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage, this description is complete enough to invoke and interpret results.

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 a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description repeats each parameter in a docstring format, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. It does add a 'Returns' line describing output fields, which is useful since there is no output schema, but parameters themselves are fully covered by the schema.

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 states 'List customers (ship-to parties), paginated' with a specific verb and resource, and clarifies that customers are ship-to parties. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like logiwa_list_products or logiwa_list_inventory.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other list tools. The description only states what it does and its parameters; it does not mention when to prefer it over alternatives or any exclusions.

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