get_all_customers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions automatic store hash retrieval from environment variables, which is useful context, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond parameters), error handling, or what the return format looks like. For a read operation with 19 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads key information (getting customers with filtering). It could be slightly more structured by separating the automatic store hash note, but it avoids redundancy and 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?

Given the complexity (19 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error cases, or behavioral traits like pagination limits or authentication needs. The automatic store hash note is helpful, but overall, it falls short for a tool with many parameters and no structured output guidance.

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%, so the schema already documents all 19 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing some filter types (email, name, company, phone, customer group, dates, pagination) but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage context beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('all customers from the BigCommerce API'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_all_orders' or 'get_all_products' beyond mentioning customers specifically, which is implied but not contrasted.

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 mentions 'comprehensive filtering options' and automatic store hash retrieval, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for filtering vs. other customer-related tools). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tool comparisons.

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