WooCommerce MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying it's a read operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the customer_id doesn't exist. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get full details for a customer') and adds specific details ('including billing/shipping addresses and order stats') without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states what the tool does and what data it retrieves. However, the lack of annotations and minimal parameter guidance means it doesn't fully address all contextual needs for safe and effective 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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explicitly mention the 'customer_id' parameter or provide any details about its format or constraints. However, since there's only one required parameter and the tool name implies its purpose, the description's focus on what data is retrieved offers some contextual value, but it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('full details for a customer'), specifying what information is included ('billing/shipping addresses and order stats'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_customers' and 'search_customers' by focusing on retrieving detailed data for a single customer, though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 implies usage when detailed customer information is needed, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_customers' or 'search_customers'. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and description alone.

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