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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it names the auth requirement ('Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app') and explains a cross-tool behavioral consequence (membership/package ids are passed as payment_option_id when booking), which is not derivable from annotations or 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?

The first and second sentences are largely redundant, both listing 'contact details, tags, notes, active memberships and credit packages.' The useful novel content (payment_option_id linkage, auth requirement) is buried at the end rather than 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does so by enumerating the profile fields plus the booking-relevant id linkage. Combined with the auth note, it is largely complete for a single-record read tool, though it omits error/not-found behavior.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents customer_id including its origin ('Customer ID from find_customer'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Returns one customer account') and enumerates the profile contents, making it clear this is a single-record fetch rather than a search. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling mariana-tek_find_customer, leaving the get-vs-find split to be inferred.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or naming of alternatives in the description text; the routing hint ('Customer ID from find_customer') lives only in the schema. A prerequisite (Cotlet API key with access) is mentioned, but that is an auth requirement rather than usage selection guidance.

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