list_customer_properties

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that results are paginated, describes the return envelope (results, total_count, next_cursor, next_page_results), and clarifies the workspace-level nature of properties. While it doesn't mention permissions or side effects, there are none expected for a read-only list; the pagination behavior is the key contextual addition.

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 well-structured with a leading summary sentence, a brief definition, and clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. It is compact, with no filler or redundant phrases, and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool lists, how pagination works, how to use parameters, and what the response contains. It is fully self-sufficient for an AI agent to select and invoke 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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's parameter explanations are essential. It fully documents both parameters: cursor as 'Prior response's next_cursor; omit for first page' and per_page with range and default, adding valuable semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 'List customer properties (paginated)' with a specific verb and resource, and goes beyond a tautology by defining customer properties. It also differentiates from the sibling tool get_customer_property_values, saying 'Use get_customer_property_values to read what a specific customer holds for them.'

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 points to an alternative tool for a different use case and explains the pagination protocol ('page again while next_page_results is true'). This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool vs. get_customer_property_values.

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