list_customers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, and destructive=false. The description adds context beyond them: 'Every page is walked' reveals automatic pagination, and the `deletedAt` note warns that deleted customers may still appear carrying that field. This aligns with openWorldHint rather than contradicting it.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause earns its place: return-field scope, exclusion, use case plus alternative, pagination, and deleted-record behavior. No filler and no repetition of what annotations or schema already provide.

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?

Complete for a simple one-parameter list tool. The output schema covers return values, annotations cover the safety profile, and the description covers scope, usage guidance, auto-pagination, and edge-case behavior. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%; the schema already documents `entity` precisely ('Exact `entity` key from `list_entities`, not its `display_name`. Required; there is no default.'). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the 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 a specific verb and resource: 'List accounts-receivable customers.' It also scopes the return fields ('id, name, and email') and explicitly excludes addresses ('No addresses.'). Names the sibling it is not (`list_recipients`), so an agent can differentiate without inspecting other schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this for invoice customers') with a cross-tool linkage (ids are the `customerId` on `list_invoices` rows). Explicitly names the alternative `list_recipients` and the condition that selects it (payees the organization pays). Nothing is left to inference.

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