ClockNext: get customer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description 'Fetch one customer' is consistent but adds no extra behavioral context beyond what the schema (parameter id) implies. It does not disclose behavior for non-existent ids or return format. Given annotations cover the safety profile, this is acceptable but not enriched.

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, short sentence of six words. Every word is informative, with no filler or repetition. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. It does not explicitly state what is returned (e.g., the full customer object), but this is largely implied by the operation name and field. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly, though a touch more detail on return behavior would make it 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 coverage is 100% with the parameter id described as 'The ClockNext customer id.' The description repeats this by saying 'by ClockNext id' without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter and the description provides no additional semantics.

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 uses a specific verb 'fetch' and identifies the resource 'customer' plus the selection mechanism 'by ClockNext id.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_customers or create_customer, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: when retrieving one specific customer by its ClockNext id. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_customers, but the context of 'one customer by id' implies a targeted lookup, making the usage context clear without exclusions.

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