get_customer_group_members

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it always returns an explicit error, describes the two failing API approaches, and specifies the return dict fields (error, group_id, supported_alternative). This is exemplary 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 well-organized with clear sections (function, limitations, return structure). It is slightly long but every part earns its place, given the unusual unsupported nature of the tool. A single sentence would not suffice.

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?

The description completely explains the tool's purpose, limitations, and return structure. Even without an output schema, the return dict is described. For a tool that exists primarily to surface an API limitation, this is exceptionally complete.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including its source (list_customer_groups). The description doesn't add new parameter details, but the schema adequately handles semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 first states the apparent purpose (get customer IDs in a group) but then immediately clarifies the actual behavior: the API doesn't support this and the tool always returns an error. This is a specific, honest depiction that distinguishes it from sibling list tools that actually return data.

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?

Explicitly explains when not to use the tool (the endpoint doesn't exist, filter params are ignored) and provides a concrete alternative: export from Shopline backend. This gives clear usage guidance beyond just the tool's behavior.

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