list_customers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the basic action and provides no information about pagination, ordering, response structure, or potential performance implications. While it clearly implies a read operation, it does not add any behavioral context beyond what the name suggests.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and a straightforward purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, clear purpose, and an output schema exists), the description is nearly complete. It states the core function, and the output schema covers return values. However, it could mention that it returns a list of all customers without pagination or any limits, but this is largely implicit. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is trivially 100% covered. Per the calibration baseline, a 0-parameter tool merits a 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and it does not add anything that conflicts with 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 'List all customers' uses a specific verb (list) and resource (customers), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that get, delete, create, or update a customer. It leaves no ambiguity about what action is performed.

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 tool's usage is implied by the name and description: it lists all customers, while siblings handle individual customer operations. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_customer or when a filter would be needed. The context is implied rather than stated.

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