GetCustomersMe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes a read operation ('Retrieve'), which is safe, but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if no customer is logged in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it at least clarifies the scope (logged-in customer).

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 that front-load the core purpose and follow with parameter guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description provides basic purpose and parameter hints but lacks details on authentication, error handling, return format, or sibling differentiation. It's minimally adequate for a simple read tool but leaves gaps in behavioral context and output expectations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'expand the customer's relations or select the fields that should be returned,' which adds meaning to the 'fields' parameter by explaining its purpose for customization. However, it doesn't detail syntax, format, or examples, leaving the parameter partially documented. With one parameter and some added context, this meets the baseline for low 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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('logged-in customer'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it retrieves the current authenticated customer rather than a general customer list or specific customer by ID. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with tools like 'GetCustomers' (which doesn't exist in siblings) or 'GetCustomersMeAddresses', so it's not fully sibling-differentiated.

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 the logged-in customer's data, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'GetCustomersMeAddresses' for addresses or other customer-related tools. It mentions expanding relations or selecting fields, which hints at usage for customization, but lacks clear when/when-not scenarios or named alternatives.

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