get_customers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses nontrivial behavior: case-insensitive substring matching across specific fields, and pagination metadata including total ignoring limit. It is clearly a read-oriented list operation, so no contradiction or hidden mutation risk is apparent.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the core purpose, then cover search semantics and return shape. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 is largely sufficient for a simple list tool: it covers invocation, search fields, and top-level return metadata. However, no output schema exists and the description does not specify the shape of an individual customer row beyond calling it a row, leaving some ambiguity about available fields.

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 documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying case-insensitive substring semantics and clarifying that total counts all matches regardless of limit, going beyond the schema's LIKE %term% phrasing.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List customers') and clarifies the tool's scope with optional search behavior. It clearly distinguishes from sibling aggregation tools like top_customers_by_spend by describing a paginated flat list rather than a ranking or metric.

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 clearly implies usage: list customers, optionally narrowed by a free-text search. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the pagination and search context are enough for an agent to recognize when this tool applies.

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