get_customer_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that it returns a profile with specific fields, implying a read-only operation, but it doesn't explicitly confirm read-only behavior, error handling (e.g., not found), or any side effects. While adequate for a simple get, it could be more explicit about the safety and failure modes.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the alternative usage is stated concisely. Every sentence contributes information, and there is no redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what it accepts, what it returns, and how to route when the ID is unavailable. It does not detail return structure or error cases, but given the tool's simplicity, this is reasonably complete.

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% for the single parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving an example format ('CUST-0007') and emphasizing 'exact customer ID', which clarifies that the value must match precisely. This goes beyond the schema's description to reduce ambiguity.

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 'Get' and a specific resource 'full profile for a single customer', and identifies the key identifier (customer ID). It distinguishes from the sibling search_customers by explicitly stating when to use that alternative, and it lists the returned fields, making the tool's purpose 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 explicitly says 'If you only have a name or email, use search_customers first', giving clear guidance on when to prefer an alternative. However, it does not address other siblings like get_customer_orders or list_customers_by_status, though the mention of 'order summary' hinted at potential overlap. The guidance is helpful but not exhaustive.

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