rc_get_customer

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

No annotations are provided, placing the burden on the description. The description only states the tool fetches details but does not disclose behavior like read-only nature, error handling (e.g., missing customer), response size, or anything about side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to predict behavior.

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 sentence of 10 words, front-loading the core purpose. Every word is necessary; there is no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 there is no output schema, the description should compensate by indicating what 'details' includes (e.g., customer info, entitlements, transactions). It fails to do so, leaving the agent without understanding the return value structure or any limitations. The tool's complexity is low (2 params), but behavioral context is missing.

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% (both parameters are described). The description adds value by clarifying that 'project_id' can be omitted to use a default from environment, and that 'customer_id' can be either app_user_id or RevenueCat customer ID. This goes beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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 ('Get details') and the resource ('single customer'), and specifies the identifier ('by app_user_id'). This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like 'rc_list_customers' (list vs single) and 'rc_get_customer_purchases' (details vs purchases).

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 needing details for one customer, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., why not use 'rc_get_customer_purchases' or 'rc_get_customer_subscriptions'). No when-not-to-use or fallback instructions are given.

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