get_inactive_customers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the core behavior (lists customers by inactivity threshold) but does not disclose the return format, ordering, or edge cases (e.g., whether customers with no purchases are included). It is not misleading but incomplete.

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, front-loaded with the action, and contains no fluff. Every sentence earns its place, providing purpose and usage context efficiently.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the purpose and usage but omits details about the output structure or any additional behavior. This is sufficient for a simple list tool but leaves some ambiguity for an agent expecting specific return values.

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 schema already fully describes the only parameter 'days' with a default and explanation. The description does not add any extra parameter semantics, and with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Lister') and resource ('clients') with a clear criterion (haven't purchased for X days). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_top_customers (which likely focuses on top revenue) and get_customer_profile (individual customer lookup).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: for follow-ups, loyalty campaigns, or when the user asks 'who hasn't come for a long time'. It does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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