bridge_list_customers

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'with optional pagination', which merely restates the schema's optional limit/cursor parameters. It does not disclose return format, default pagination behavior, authentication needs, or any side effects.

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 immediately conveys the core function. There is no fluff or repetition; every word adds value.

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 low-complexity tool with two fully described optional parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks information about the response envelope, default page size, how cursors are used, or any operational constraints, making it only partially complete.

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 input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (limit and cursor), achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond confirming that pagination is optional, which is already evident from the 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 the action ('List') and the resource ('all customers'), and explicitly mentions optional pagination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bridge_create_customer and bridge_get_customer by being the only general list operation for customers.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bridge_get_customer or bridge_list_wallets. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or behavior differences from other list tools.

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