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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: the notes are private and never shown to the customer, and the call requires a Cotlet API key with access to this app. These are auth/permission and data-visibility facts not derivable from annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its contents, but the payload description is restated near-verbatim ('contact details, your private notes and past and upcoming appointments' then 'contact details, your private notes and their past, present and future appointments'). The redundancy wastes space a reader must parse twice.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does list the returned contents adequately. The auth requirement is noted. Minor gaps remain (no error/empty-result or pagination behavior), but for a simple single-record read it is essentially 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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains customer_id and even points to find_customer. The description adds nothing parameter-specific; baseline 3 applies when structured fields carry the load.

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 (get) and resource (customer), and enumerates exactly what the profile contains: contact details, private notes, and past/present/future appointments. It is clearly a single-record fetch, distinct from the sibling find_customer (a search) — though the get-vs-find distinction is only hinted at via the schema's 'Customer ID from find_customer', not stated in the description itself.

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?

No explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the alternative find_customer within the description. The only routing hint ('Customer ID from find_customer') lives in the schema, so an agent must infer that a prior find step is required to obtain the id.

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