pennylane_get_customer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response contains address, contacts and payment terms, which is light but relevant context; it says nothing about auth scope or missing-id behavior, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the return content following. Every sentence 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?

With an output schema covering return values and rich annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to convey purpose and lookup key, which it does. A brief note on error behavior for an unknown id would make it fully 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 description coverage is 100% and there is a single, fully documented parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes 'par son identifiant' without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Récupère) and resource (le détail d'un client) with the lookup key (par son identifiant), which cleanly separates it from the list_customers sibling. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'par son identifiant' implies the precondition that an id is already known, distinguishing it from list_customers, but the description never states when to use this versus listing or the changelog tools. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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