List customers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: search matches name/contact/email/phone, archived switches the result set, and next_cursor must be passed back as cursor. It does not mention rate limits or default page size, so not a 5.

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?

Tight, two-sentence body where every clause carries information (search scope, downstream use, archived, cursor). The lead fragment 'Customer profiles with contact details and sites' is slightly return-value focused rather than action-focused, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so at a summary level (fields, archived variant, cursor pagination). For a four-optional-parameter read tool this is sufficient; only the limit default/maximum behavior is left entirely to the schema.

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 75% — cursor, search and archived are already documented in the schema, and limit is constrained there. The description mostly restates the search match fields and cursor handoff rather than adding syntax or edge-case semantics, so 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?

The description pairs the verb 'Lists' with the resource (customers, by name) and enumerates the fields returned (contact, email, phone, mobile, address, sites). It is clearly not one of the write-oriented siblings (create_job, send_invoice), though it doesn't name a specific sibling to contrast with.

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 states the routing use case: 'use it to find the customer_id before creating a job or quote', which ties this lookup to the downstream create_* tools in the sibling set. It also explains the archived toggle and the cursor round-trip. It lacks an explicit 'do not use this when…' exclusion, keeping it short of a 5.

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