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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description contributes only the underlying endpoint (GET /customer/details) and the returned field groups, adding modest value but no auth, rate-limit, or not-found behavior.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and identifier modes, then the return payload, then the endpoint. No filler sentences and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations carrying the safety profile, and no output schema, the description covers inputs, return contents, and the backing endpoint. It omits only failure-mode behavior (unknown id, ambiguous name), which keeps it from a 5.

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% and the enum of by-values is already self-documenting, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuinely new semantics by requiring an 'exact' match for the name and e-mail modes, which the schema does not convey.

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 (get) and resource (one customer), enumerates the accepted identifier types, and previews the returned payload fields. The singular 'One customer' implicitly contrasts with synchroteam_list_customers, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'exact name or e-mail' gives a real precondition (no fuzzy/substring matching), which is implied usage guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over synchroteam_list_customers or what to do when no exact match exists, so it lacks explicit when-to-use/alternatives.

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