List customers

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), while the description adds non-obvious behavior: results are newest-first, include both active and deactivated records by default, no total count is available, and next_cursor is only set when a full page comes back. That pagination-termination rule is exactly the kind of detail an agent cannot infer from the structured fields.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then ordering and pagination caveats, then the sibling handoff. No redundant restatement of the title or 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?

There is no output schema, yet the description still conveys the return shape (customer records with email and phone), ordering, default status scope, and how paging ends. For a zero-required-parameter list tool that is everything needed to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with limit range, cursor source, search semantics and the status enum all documented inline, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only echoes the search fields and the active/deactivated notion, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource (the store's customers) and what it carries (email and phone), plus the search fields, which is a specific verb+resource framing. It also distinguishes itself from the get_customer sibling by naming the handoff key: "Use customer_id in get_customer."

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?

Explicitly routes downstream detail lookups to get_customer and explains the active/deactivated default, so the agent knows which tool to pick for a single record. It does not mention create_customer as the alternative for adding a customer, but that is a low-ambiguity gap for a list tool.

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