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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the concrete endpoint (GET /v1/customers/{customer_id}/) and notes that relationships are optional embeds, which is modest extra context but no auth, pagination, or failure-mode detail.

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?

Two short fragments with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The trailing raw endpoint is slightly redundant but cheap and aids API mapping.

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 a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is fetched and what can be embedded. Return-shape detail is the only meaningful omission, and the annotations carry the rest.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the 'with' pattern and the vendor-default fallback. The description only restates the existence of relationship embedding, adding no syntax or default detail beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb (get), resource (customer), and scope (by id), and the phrase 'One customer by id' implicitly distinguishes it from cratejoy_list_customers. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so an agent must infer the single-vs-list split.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by id' and the optional relationship embedding, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over cratejoy_list_customers or the other get_* siblings. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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