hero_list_customers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that results come back as a page and enumerates the returned fields. It says nothing about rate limits, auth, or result-count limits, which is a modest gap for an open-world listing tool with no output schema.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, the search behavior second, and the return shape last. The return-field list partially overlaps the fields already named in the search sentence, costing a little density but not clarity.

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 parameterless read-only list tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering, and the returned field set, which is what an agent needs. It omits any note on page size or how to page beyond offset, a minor gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by naming the exact fields `search` matches on (name, company, email, phone, address), which the schema only calls a generic 'case-insensitive text filter'. It does not extend meaning for `category`, `offset`, or `filters`, so it does not reach 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List contacts from HERO') and clarifies the default category ('customers by default'), which separates it from hero_list_projects, hero_list_documents, and the other list siblings. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use for other contact categories, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It explains how to narrow results ('Use `search` to filter the returned page') but gives no when-to-use guidance versus hero_graphql for arbitrary queries, nor when to prefer hero_list_customers over hero_list_projects-adjacent listing tools. Usage 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.