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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds 'authorized' and 'customer' context, indicating this is the authenticated user's own profile, but it does not disclose potential error conditions or access constraints beyond that.

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?

The description is a single five-word sentence that front-loads the action ('Read') and resource. Every word earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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?

A zero-parameter, read-only operation with an output schema and safety annotations needs little else. The description specifies exactly which resource is read and under whose authorization, making it fully complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers semantics by construction. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly avoids adding irrelevant parameter detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') with a specific resource ('authorized customer account profile'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling getters like get_artisan or get_order. The 'authorized' qualifier also clarifies it targets the caller's own account, not any arbitrary one.

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 implies usage when the agent needs the current customer's account profile, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given the large sibling list of getters and account-related tools, a short routing statement would improve selection confidence.

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