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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /customers/{id}) and clarifies a single object is returned, but says nothing about error behavior for missing ids, auth requirements, or what the payload looks like.

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?

One short sentence plus the endpoint path; the key disambiguating fact (source of the id) is front-loaded and nothing is padded.

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 trivial single-parameter read with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It never indicates what fields a customer record carries or whether related data (contacts, addresses) is included, which an agent needs to decide whether this call suffices.

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% with a single documented parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the useful hint that the id originates from jurnal_list_customers, but no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the specific verb+resource ('One customer by id') and points to the sibling that produces ids, so an agent can distinguish it from jurnal_list_customers without opening the schema. It stops short of naming what a 'customer' record contains, but the retrieval intent is unambiguous.

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?

'from jurnal_list_customers' implies the intended workflow: list first, then fetch a single record by id. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the list tool or what happens with an invalid id, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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