get_customer_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Retrieve', but it does not disclose ordering, pagination behavior, output field set, or what happens when no filters are applied. It is not misleading, but it leaves room for more transparency.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by the key capabilities. It is appropriately compact, though it could add sibling differentiation without much cost.

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 straightforward read-only list tool with a fully documented schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it names the resource, source, and available filters. There is no output schema, so some return-shape detail is missing, but the core information an agent needs to select and invoke the tool is present.

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 has 100% description coverage: topN, search, and activeOnly are all individually documented, including defaults and matching semantics. The description's mention of filtering by name/code search, active status, and result count adds no new semantic detail beyond 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 a specific verb ('Retrieve'), resource ('a list of customers (business partners)'), and source system ('SAP B1'). It differentiates from get_customer_details and get_top_customers by being a list operation with filtering, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 implies when to use it: when you need a filtered customer list from SAP B1. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives like get_customer_details for single-record lookups or get_top_customers for rank-based selection, leaving some routing to inference.

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