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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a SOAP GetCustomer call and clarifies the code meaning, but it does not discuss lookup failure behavior, return shape, or other operational context.

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 no waste. The key resource and lookup method are front-loaded, followed by a compact technical note.

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 simple read-only getter with complete schema coverage and annotations declaring safety, the description is largely sufficient. It could mention the returned customer or not-found behavior, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke it.

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%, so the schema already documents the sole customer_code parameter. The description still adds meaning by calling out that it is the short code shown in the customer list, which helps distinguish it from other customer identifiers.

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 identifies a specific resource (one customer) and the exact lookup key (KashFlow customer code), with an example and the underlying SOAP method. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as get_customer_by_id or find_customer_by_email.

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 phrase 'by its KashFlow customer code' implies when to use this tool, and the example clarifies that the code is the short customer-list code. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over the by-ID, by-email, or list-customers alternatives.

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