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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful API context (V3 API, GET endpoint), but does not describe authentication requirements, error behavior, or response characteristics.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core operation. Every clause contributes: record scope, id source, API version, and endpoint. No wasted text.

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 one-parameter read tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The only meaningful gap is that it does not clarify the return shape or differentiate from stamped_lookup_customer.

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 the single customer_id parameter is already documented. The description adds only that the id comes from stamped_list_customers, with no additional format or validation details beyond the schema baseline.

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: retrieve one customer record by Stamped customer id. It also identifies where the id comes from (stamped_list_customers), which distinguishes it from the list tool. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling stamped_lookup_customer.

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 parenthetical 'customerId from stamped_list_customers' implies the typical usage flow after listing customers. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus stamped_lookup_customer, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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