clockodo_list_customers

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation safe, lowering the bar. The description mentions 'Optional: page' which hints at pagination but does not explain behavior like result ordering, response shape, or any side effects. No extra behavioral context is added beyond what the annotation provides.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence about optional parameters is somewhat redundant with the schema but adds a quick summary. No fluff, and the structure is efficient.

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?

For a simple list tool with no required parameters and a read-only annotation, the description is mostly adequate. It lacks details on pagination behavior or output structure, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity. The missing page semantics are a minor gap.

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 50%, with 'page' lacking any schema description. The description's 'Optional: page, name filter' adds no real meaning beyond restating optionality and name filtering, which is already partly in the schema. It does not clarify what 'page' represents or how it affects results, leaving a gap that the description should have filled.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Lists customers.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_projects and list_users, each targeting a different entity. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name: an agent would use this when needing to list customers. However, the description provides no explicit context, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives. There is no mention of conditions that would favor a different tool.

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