list_customers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Lists') but does not disclose pagination behavior, result limits, or the exact filter query syntax. The vague 'etc.' leaves important filtering capabilities unspecified.

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?

A single sentence that states the core function and a key capability. There is no redundant information, and the important phrase 'Lists customers in the shop' appears first. This is appropriately concise.

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?

The tool is simple with three optional parameters and no output schema, but the description omits usage guidance and return format. It does not explain how pagination works (despite the 'after' cursor in the schema) or what fields are returned per customer. While the schema covers parameter syntax, the description is thin for an AI agent trying to decide between list_customers and get_customer.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, providing the baseline of 3. The description adds that filtering is by 'name, email, etc.', but the schema's examples ('email:test@example.com' or 'country:DE') are more specific. Therefore, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond 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 uses the specific verb 'Lists' and names the resource 'customers', clearly identifying it as a read-only listing tool. It also mentions filterability by name/email, setting it apart from create/update/delete siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from other list_* tools or 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_customer for single-customer lookups or list_orders for other resources. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references. It merely states what it does without usage context.

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