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.

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 implies read-only behavior via 'Get' but does not explicitly state non-mutating or any error/edge-case behavior. It does describe the return structure (list with fields), which adds some value, but lacks disclosure on empty results, pagination, or access requirements. For a simple read operation this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and example. The second sentence adds return details and a redirect to search_customers. Zero waste, every clause earns its place.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what it returns (list with order fields) and provides an alternative when prerequisites are unmet. There is no missing information an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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% and the schema itself documents customer_id with the same example and description. The description adds the qualifier 'exact' and repeats the example, but this is marginal beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gets the full order history for a single customer by exact customer ID, with the example 'CUST-0007'. It also specifies return fields, making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with every sibling, but it does name search_customers as an alternative, which helps differentiation.

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 clear usage context: use when you have the exact customer ID, and if you only have a name/email, use search_customers first. This explicitly sets a condition for when not to use this tool. However, it does not mention other siblings like get_customer_details or get_customer_stats, so coverage of alternatives is incomplete but sufficient for basic routing.

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

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 discloses a key behavioral detail—total spend excludes cancelled/refunded orders—which is essential to interpret the output. However, it does not cover edge cases like nonexistent customer IDs or permission requirements, but for a read-only summary tool this is acceptable.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first lists the purpose and metrics, the second gives usage guidance. The phrase 'e.g. CUST-0007' repeats the schema example, but the description is otherwise efficient 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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return values (metrics listed), a hidden behavioral detail (exclusion of cancelled/refunded), and clear usage context. No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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%; the schema already describes customer_id with an example. The description reinforces 'exact' and repeats the same example, adding no new semantic information. It meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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'), the resource ('summary spend statistics for a single customer'), and specifies the exact metrics returned (total order count, total spend, average order value, lifetime value). It also explicitly differentiates from raw order lists via the phrase 'rather than their raw order list,' distinguishing it from the sibling get_customer_orders.

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 an explicit when: 'Use this for questions about how much a specific customer has spent,' and a when-not with an alternative: 'rather than their raw order list.' This gives clear guidance without ambiguity.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns 'basic profile info', implying a read-only operation and summarizing the output. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or potential limitations, but for a simple list-by-status tool this is sufficient. The description is honest and does not contradict any annotations (there are none).

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 concise sentences: the first delivers the core action and valid values, the second states the return type and provides query examples. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose and contains zero filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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, valid inputs, return nature, and usage examples. It does not mention pagination or any edge cases, but given the simplicity of the operation, this is adequate. A 5 would require addressing potential limitations or more specific return details, which are not critical here.

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% — the single 'status' parameter already has an enum and a clear description. The description repeats the valid statuses and gives usage examples, which adds a little context but does not provide new semantic meaning beyond what the schema declares. This matches the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 ('List'), the resource ('all customers'), and the specific filter ('with a given status'). It also gives concrete example queries, which makes the purpose unambiguous. The verb 'list' distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_customers (search) and get_customer_details (single customer), so an agent can easily tell them apart.

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 explicit usage context with example questions ('show me all active customers', 'which customers have churned?'), telling the agent when to invoke this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_customers or get_customer_details, so it stops short of the full 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses case-insensitive partial matching, indicates the return content ('basic profile info'), and explicitly excludes full order history, directing to other tools. It does not mention pagination or error behavior, but for a read-only search these are minor gaps.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, each earning its place. No redundancy, and the secondary alternatives are mentioned succinctly without digressing.

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 one-parameter search tool, it covers the essential context: what it matches, what it returns (basic profile), what it excludes (order history), and when to use it. It could elaborate on what 'basic profile info' includes, but given the single parameter and no output schema, this is adequate.

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 already fully documents the query parameter with description and example, covering the matching behavior (partial, case-insensitive). The tool description restates the same info but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Search for customers'), identifies the resource ('customers'), and enumerates searchable fields (name, email, company). It also distinguishes from siblings by noting it's for partial text matches rather than exact IDs and mentions get_customer_details/get_customer_orders for order history, making it clear what this tool is for.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when the user gives a name, email, or company rather than an exact customer ID.' It also guides toward alternatives for order history, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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