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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the endpoint and names the returned data categories (company info, contacts, settings), which is useful because there is no output schema, but it omits error behavior (e.g., unknown id) and any rate/permission notes.

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 sentences with the identifying scope front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotations, the description covers what it fetches and what comes back (company info, contacts, settings), which compensates for the absent output schema. Only minor gaps remain around error/no-match 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is well documented in the schema, including the pattern and where to obtain the id. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond restating 'by customer id', so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('One customer by customer id') plus the payload contents (company info, contacts, settings), which clearly separates it from extensiv_list_customers. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling list tool, so it stops short of 5.

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 'by customer id' phrasing implies single-record lookup versus listing, and the schema points to extensiv_list_customers as the id source. However, the description never states when to use this over the list tool or what to do if the id is unknown.

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