queryProjCustomer

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: reading form config, building dynamic query parameters, querying an endpoint, translating values with data dictionary, and including IDs in return. This provides solid insight into internal workings, though it does not mention permissions or side effects.

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?

The description is concise (3 sentences) and well-structured: first sentence states core function, second explains the process, third describes return value. Every sentence adds unique value with no wasted 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?

Given no output schema, the description partially explains return: it mentions IDs in context for follow-up operations. However, it does not describe full response structure (e.g., pagination metadata, total count). For a paginated query, this omission reduces completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds general context (dynamic queries, dictionary translation) but does not enhance individual parameter semantics beyond the schema's own descriptions. The filters parameter gets some extra context about dynamic conditions, but not enough to raise the score.

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's purpose: dynamically paginated query of project customer list according to MES form configuration. It specifies the action (query), resource (project customer list), and method (dynamic pagination). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like queryProjProjectList which query a different resource.

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 implies usage for querying project customers and mentions that returned IDs enable subsequent operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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