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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the API version and endpoint path, but does not disclose auth requirements, not-found behavior, or rate limits.

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 short, front-loaded, and every element earns its place: the lookup target, the exactly-one constraint, the API version, and the endpoint.

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?

It is sufficient to invoke the tool for a read-only lookup, especially given annotations and rich schema descriptions. However, it omits not-found behavior and does not clarify how the shopId in the endpoint path is supplied relative to the schema parameters.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds the important cross-parameter constraint that exactly one of email or a platform id must be supplied. That cardinality rule is not expressed in the schema itself.

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 states a specific action and resource: find one customer by email or a platform id. It distinguishes lookup from list-style siblings by emphasizing a single customer, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from stamped_get_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?

It gives clear context for use: lookup a single customer via email or one platform identifier, and requires exactly one identifier. It does not name when to use stamped_get_customer or stamped_list_customers instead.

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