brc_get_customer

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

The description states it 'gets' a customer, implying a read operation, but no behavioral details are provided beyond that. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but fails to disclose any constraints, required permissions, or potential side effects.

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, clear sentence. It is appropriately concise with no unnecessary words.

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 get-by-id operation, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not mention that both parameters are required, nor does it indicate what the return value contains (e.g., full customer object). With no output schema, some additional context would be helpful.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or usage hints beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 action ('Gets') and the resource ('one BRC customer by id'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like brc_get_accrual or brc_list_customers by identifying the target resource and the lookup method.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., brc_list_customers, brc_update_customer). There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.

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