Get Customer Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by disclosing the return scope: the full record including contacts, locations, and custom fields. It does not address not-found behavior, but the safety profile is already well covered by annotations.

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?

One sentence with no filler. The verb, resource, key, and response contents are all front-loaded, and every phrase adds distinct, useful 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?

For a simple one-parameter, read-only get-by-ID operation, the description adequately conveys the lookup key and the response contents. However, since there is no output schema, the agent still lacks a precise return shape and error behavior, so it is slightly less than 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?

The schema already describes customer_id as 'Internal numeric customer ID' with exclusiveMinimum 0, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description merely echoes 'internal ID' without adding additional semantic 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('a single customer's full record'), the lookup key ('internal ID'), and the expected contents ('contacts, locations, and custom fields'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_customers and get_customer_jobs.

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 use case is implied: call this when you already have the internal customer ID and need the full record. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives like search_customers for lookup by name or email, so guidance is left to inference.

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