List Wave customers

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

Annotations already declare the safe, idempotent read profile, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the case-insensitive 'contains' semantics, the 500-customer scan ceiling, and the scan_truncated signal. It also names the returned fields, which is useful though partly redundant with the output schema.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose, filter semantics, and downstream usage. The most decision-relevant facts (name ordering, filter behavior) are front-loaded with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is optional, yet the description summarizes the key fields. With annotations covering safety and the schema covering paging, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so email/page/page_size are already documented; the description adds the exact-vs-contains nuance and the scan limit for `name`. It says nothing about paging parameters, but the schema carries that load, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List customers'), scopes it ('of the pinned Wave business, sorted by name'), and enumerates the filter dimensions. It is clearly distinguishable from wave_get_customer (single fetch) and wave_create_customer by its list semantics and paging.

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?

Provides concrete routing guidance for the result ('Use the id with wave_create_invoice or wave_list_invoices') and explains how each filter behaves. It stops short of explicitly contrasting when to prefer this over wave_get_customer or the other list_* tools, but the context is clear.

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