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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context: it is for analysis/CRM, get returns purchase history, and customer_ids enables batched execution. However, it does not explain behavior when called without customer_id despite schema marking all parameters optional.

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 compact and uses a short action breakdown with a clear flattened-action marker. Some redundancy/confusion remains because the list action is documented even though the tool is flattened to get, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 the get use case, the description provides the core requirements: customer_id, return content (profile + purchase history), and bulk support. Missing pieces include the meaning of account, the behavior with no parameters, and more detail on response shape—especially since no output schema exists.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It gives meaning to search and page (list filters), customer_id (single get), and customer_ids (bulk). The account parameter is completely unexplained, and the relationship between customer_id and customer_ids is only partially described.

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 resource (Cakto customers) and a definite action: get returns 'perfil de UM cliente + histórico de compras' requiring customer_id. The inclusion of a list action in the same description creates some ambiguity with sibling cakto_customers_list, but the flattened-action note clarifies the actual mode is get.

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?

Implies when to use get (single customer profile/history with customer_id) and when to use bulk (customer_ids), but does not explicitly steer the agent to cakto_customers_list for list queries. The presence of list documentation inside a get tool further blurs the usage boundary.

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