list_sa360_customers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the result set is partial and omits children reachable only via a manager, which prevents wrong assumptions about completeness.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the scope constraint front-loaded and the alternative routing placed second. Every clause carries information.

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 and rich annotations mean return format and safety need no explanation, and the partiality caveat is covered. However, the meaning of the 'account' parameter is left entirely unexplained, which is a real gap for a tool whose only input is undocumented.

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 single optional 'account' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never explains what it does — whether it scopes the listing, acts as a manager filter, or is a resource name. The description does not compensate for the documentation gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List ... SA360 customer resource names') and immediately narrows the scope to 'directly accessible', which distinguishes it from the hierarchy-walking sibling. An agent can tell what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

It names the alternative explicitly ('Use get_sa360_customer_clients on a manager to discover child accounts') and states the condition that selects it, plus a warning that this list is not exhaustive. Only the absence of an explicit 'use this tool when...' framing keeps it from a 5.

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