customers_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only listing operation with filtering and pagination, which are behavioral traits. However, it does not disclose response format, ordering, defaults, or required provider behavior, so it provides only minimal 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, front-loaded sentence that names the action, resource, and key filters without unnecessary detail. Every phrase earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the main filters and pagination but omits the required 'provider' parameter and gives no hint about the return payload or how it differs from customers_search. The rich schema compensates partially, but the description alone leaves gaps.

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 describes all 6 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description need not repeat them. It adds natural-language mapping for segment, min spent, orders, and pagination, but omits 'provider' (a required parameter) and adds no deeper semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'Lista' (lists) with the resource 'clientes' and names the key filters: segment, minimum spend, orders, and pagination. It is clear and distinct from customers_get, customers_orders, customers_segments, and customers_lifetime_value, though it does not explicitly contrast with customers_search, which could overlap.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like customers_search or customers_segments. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case without exclusion or alternative hints.

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