List customer groups

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavior details like default compact fields, response structure, and monetary cents. However, it misleadingly states 'optional filters' when no filter parameters exist in the schema, which misrepresents the tool's actual behavior and reduces 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 reasonably concise at about 120 words and well-structured with separate paragraphs for purpose, context, return format, and currency. Each sentence carries useful information, though the misleading 'optional filters' phrase adds unnecessary and inaccurate wording. Overall, it is efficient without being terse.

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?

Without an output schema, the description explicitly lists the response structure and explains pagination via 'next_page', which is essential. It also covers the fields parameter and currency format. However, the false claim of 'optional filters' creates a gap, as the description does not clarify that no filtering is supported, making it slightly incomplete.

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% with detailed descriptions for all four parameters, so the description does not need to add much. It does mention 'pass fields for specific columns or all' and 'use next_page to continue', but these are largely redundant with the schema. The added note about monetary values concerns return data, not parameter semantics.

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 core purpose is clear: 'List customer groups from easybill' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'easybill_get_customer_group' by implying a plural list operation. However, the claim of 'optional filters' is unsupported by the input schema, which slightly muddies the purpose by suggesting filtering capabilities that do not exist.

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 context on when to use the tool: customer groups classify customers and their IDs are used as 'group_id' when creating/filtering customers, implying you should call this to get those IDs. It also gives pagination guidance ('Use next_page to continue paging'). It does not explicitly compare with alternatives, but the list-vs-get sibling relationship is clear.

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