get_customer_group_customers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond that — results are version-cursor paged — but says nothing about ordering, cursor stability, or what the returned payload contains, and nothing contradicts the annotations.

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 a single front-loaded fragment with zero waste. That said, it errs toward under-specification rather than economy — there is no room left for the pagination detail that would actually help an agent call it correctly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a tool with a required identifier and two undocumented pagination parameters, the description leaves too much unresolved — how to page, what the cursor is, and how this differs from other customer-listing tools.

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 all three parameters (customer_group_id, after, page_size) rely on the description for meaning, and it explains none of them. 'Version-cursor paged' gestures at the paging model but does not clarify that 'after' is the version cursor or how page_size interacts with it.

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 fragment 'Customers in a customer group' identifies the resource and its scope well enough that an agent can guess it lists customers belonging to a given group. However, there is no explicit verb and no differentiation from siblings like search_customers or get_customer, so the agent must infer the distinction from the group-scoping alone.

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 statement of when to use this tool rather than search_customers or get_customer, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The only contextual hint is '(version-cursor paged)', which describes mechanics, not selection criteria.

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