list_customers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination and date filtering, which are important traits. However, it does not state that the tool is read-only, nor does it explain return format or pagination behavior (e.g., cursor handling). The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no filler, and the main action is front-loaded. Every word adds value.

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 the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the essential features (filtering and pagination) but lacks specifics about return format or pagination details. It does not mention any edge cases or limitations, but for a simple listing tool, this is acceptable.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all 5 parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter-level details beyond summarizing that it supports pagination and date filtering. It does not explain the interplay between parameters (e.g., since_id vs page_info). Baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'customers', and specifies 'in the store' as the scope. It also mentions supported features (pagination, date filtering), distinguishing it from other customer-related tools like search_customers. However, it could be more precise about what 'basic filtering' entails.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_customers. No context about prerequisites, limitations, or comparative advantages is given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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