Explains where a lost customerKey can be found: a key issued with an order is written in the order confirmation email sent to the registered address (each order placed without a key has its own key). For keys that cannot be found there, it points to contact_gyotak. This tool does not look up, verify or send anything.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phone | Yes | Phone number used at registration |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it clearly discloses that the tool has no lookup, verification, or send side effects. However, it does not explain how the required phone parameter is used or whether it influences the guidance, which is a transparency gap.
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 sentences carry the core behavior, the fallback, and the boundary with no filler. The first sentence is a bit dense with the parenthetical, but the overall structure is coherent and front-loaded.
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 covers the main behavior and limitation, but there is no output schema or annotations and the role of the mandatory phone input is unexplained. An agent can select and call the tool, but it may not know what the tool does with its only input or exactly what response to expect.
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 schema already describes 'phone' as the phone number used at registration (100% coverage), so the description adds little parameter meaning. It does not connect the phone to the order confirmation email or say whether the phone shapes the explanation, which keeps this at the baseline.
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 object: it 'explains where a lost customerKey can be found.' It also defines what the tool is not ('does not look up, verify or send anything') and names contact_gyotak as the fallback, making its role distinct from look-up and verification siblings.
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?
It states the condition for use (a lost customerKey) and gives the exact recovery path: check the order confirmation email, and if it cannot be found there, contact_gyotak. The explicit non-action statement also tells the agent not to expect verification or sending from this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.