list_customers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it reveals nothing beyond the basic action. No mention of pagination behavior, default ordering, whether 'q' does fuzzy matching vs exact match, response size implications, or rate limiting. The 'limit' default of 20 is in the schema, not the description, so even that isn't behavioral disclosure at the description level.

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 short sentence — two words essentially. It's maximal conciseness with zero waste. It's not 'front-loaded' in any meaningful way since it's so short, but there's nothing to trim. However, it errs toward under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

This is a list/search tool with 4 params, no output schema, and no annotations. The description needs to compensate for the missing structured context but fails to do so. No guidance on the 'q' search parameter semantics, no pagination workflow explanation, no note about what fields are returned by default, and no distinction from sibling list tools. For a tool with this many adjacent list tools, more completeness is needed.

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 coverage is 75% (limit, fields, offset have descriptions; q does not). The description itself adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is high (75%, above the 80% threshold is marginal but close), baseline 3 is appropriate — the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds little.

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/search customers' states clear verbs and a resource. However, it's somewhat generic and doesn't distinguish from sibling list tools like list_orders, list_collections, list_products, or list_categories — all of which follow the same pattern. It says what it does but not what makes it unique beyond the resource name.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like finding a specific customer, paginating through large customer sets, or how it differs from get_order/list_orders. The 'q' parameter implies search capability, but there's no explicit guidance on search syntax or when search vs list is appropriate.

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