list_accessible_customers

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses that login_customer_id is ignored, which is helpful. However, it does not state if the operation is read-only, safe, or any potential side effects. The output schema exists, so return format is covered externally.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence defines purpose immediately; the second adds a key behavioral note. Could be slightly improved by more front-loading, but it is effective.

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 an output schema, return values are covered. However, the description omits explanation for the limit parameter, which is essential for controlling result size. The behavioral note is useful, but overall completeness is average.

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 description should explain parameters. Only login_customer_id is mentioned (as ignored). The limit parameter, though optional with a default, is not described at all, leaving the agent without guidance on its purpose.

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 clearly states the tool lists customer IDs accessible by OAuth credentials. The verb 'List' and resource 'customer IDs' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like find_customer_clients or get_customer_clients, which might serve similar purposes.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The note about login_customer_id being ignored is a behavioral detail, not usage context. Sibling tools exist but no comparison is provided.

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