list_customers

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

The description notes that the tool maps to an HTTP GET, implying read-only and idempotent behavior. However, with no annotations provided, it does not clarify other behavioral traits such as scope (all customers? per context?), rate limits, or side effects. The GET mapping provides a baseline level of transparency.

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 two sentences long with no redundant or extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose: the verb, resource, core capabilities, and endpoint mapping are clearly and efficiently communicated.

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?

Despite 11 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description omits important details such as pagination behavior, default order, response structure, error handling, and when to use this over sibling tools (e.g., list_users). The brevity leaves significant gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool correctly.

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 description provides a high-level overview of filtering, sorting, and pagination, but the input schema already covers 64% of parameters with descriptions. The description does not add meaning for undocumented parameters (e.g., include, account_number, status) beyond the schema's baseline. It does not fully compensate for the remaining 36% coverage 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 uses the specific verb 'List' with 'customers' as the resource, directly indicating the tool's function. It adds optional capabilities (filtering, sorting, pagination) and explicitly maps to the REST endpoint 'GET /customers', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_customer or update_customer.

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 listing customers with controls, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_user for a single customer). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name and siblings.

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