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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a non-mutating read, so the description's burden is lower. It adds the returned field set and the underlying endpoint (GET /api/v1/customer-profiles/{customerId}), but says nothing about not-found behavior, empty custom attributes, or any rate/permission constraints that would help an agent interpret a failed call.

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 core action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing endpoint reference is somewhat redundant for an agent but is compact and can aid debugging.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, listing the returned fields gives the agent enough to know what comes back. Missing only edge-case behavior such as not-found handling, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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 already documents its provenance ('from gladly_find_customers'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description only reinforces that lookup is by id and does not add format details or examples beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Get one customer profile by id') and enumerates the fields returned (name, emails, phones, address, custom attributes). The 'by id' scoping implicitly separates it from the search-oriented gladly_find_customers, but the description never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the single-record lookup used when a customer id is already known. There is no explicit 'use this when…' guidance, no statement of what to do if the id is unknown (the schema, not the description, points at gladly_find_customers), and no note on alternatives.

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