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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral value by enumerating the returned fields (name, email, billing/shipping address, total orders, total spent, avatar URL), which is important given the absence of an output schema. It stops short of describing auth requirements or error behavior, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the return fields are listed efficiently without redundancy.

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 two-parameter read operation with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It compensates for the missing output schema by naming the returned fields, though it could mention error handling for invalid IDs to be fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters (id and site_id) are fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that lookup is by ID but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides, yielding the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed WooCommerce customer info') and scopes it by ID, distinguishing it from the sibling list tool woo_list_customers. An agent can immediately tell this is a single-record lookup rather than a list operation.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies the tool should be used when a specific customer ID is known, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over woo_list_customers or what to do if the ID is unknown. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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