sherweb_customers_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses pagination via parameters and the returned fields (name, status, identifiers), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe sort order, default behavior when no params are passed, response format, or error conditions. For a read-only list operation, this is moderate coverage.

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 sentences, minimal waste. Front-loaded with the primary purpose ('List customers') and then details the return fields. Could be slightly more compact but is efficient 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?

For a simple list tool with 3 optional parameters (all 100% schema-described), the description is adequate. It states what it returns (name, status, identifiers) and scope (managed by service provider). However, with no output schema, no annotation coverage, and no guidance on pagination behavior or limits, there is room for more detail about return semantics.

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 3 parameters (page, search, pageSize) are documented in the schema with descriptions. The tool description itself adds the context that 'search' targets name or identifier, which aligns with schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't add significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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 managed by the service provider'). It adds scope (customers managed by service provider) and notes the returned fields (name, status, identifiers). It distinguishes from siblings like sherweb_customers_get (single customer) reasonably well, though it could be more explicit.

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 purpose implies the general use case (listing customers), but no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance is provided. The description does not explicitly distinguish from sherweb_customers_get (fetch single) or sherweb_customers_accounts_receivable. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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