aiva_get_customer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get customer profile'), implying a read-only operation, but does not address key aspects such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it returns partial data if only one parameter is provided. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently state the purpose and output. There is no wasted language, and it directly communicates the core functionality. However, it could be slightly improved by structuring usage guidelines or behavioral details more explicitly, but it remains well-structured for its length.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, and how to interpret the return values (e.g., what 'health score' means). Without an output schema, the description should ideally elaborate on the response structure, but it only lists fields without context, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable use.

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?

The description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It mentions 'by ID or email' but does not explain the semantics, such as whether both parameters can be used together, if one is prioritized, or the format expected. Since the schema already describes the parameters adequately, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description provides only basic context without enhancing parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get customer profile by ID or email' specifies the verb (get) and resource (customer profile), and 'Returns customer details, RFM segment, health score, and subscription status' elaborates on the output. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'aiva_search_customers' or 'shopify_get_customer', which could cause confusion.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions retrieving by 'ID or email' but does not specify when to choose one over the other, nor does it contrast with sibling tools like 'aiva_search_customers' for broader searches or 'aiva_get_subscription' for focused data. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage directives.

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