Customers List

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely useful context they don't carry: the required read_customers scope and the pinned API version 2025-03. It also discloses the return envelope (count, page, per_page, has_more, next_page, items[]), which no output schema provides here.

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?

Five short lines, front-loaded with the verb+resource, followed by endpoint, scope, version, and return shape — each line earning its place. The telegraphic style drops connective context (e.g. what 'count' counts against) but wastes no words.

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 usefully spells out the response envelope including pagination fields, and it names the required OAuth scope for a 13-parameter read tool. It falls short only on pagination guidance for a 10000-record page ceiling and on distinguishing itself from sibling customer 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 100% with 13 well-documented parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about filter semantics — notably it never explains cursor pagination via since_id or how date cursors interact with page — so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 customers') plus the underlying endpoint GET /customers, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as tiendanube_customers_get or tiendanube_price_tables_customers_list, but the verb/resource pairing is distinct enough to be told apart by name.

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 gives no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and never references an alternative tool. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the bulk-retrieval path versus customers_get for a single record; nothing in the text states that routing rule.

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