customers__get_customer_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: MCP-server throttling (100 requests per 60s) and a caching recommendation, which goes beyond the 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?

The description is structured with Args/Returns and separate notes, making it easy to scan. It front-loads the purpose and adds relevant operational advice (throttling, caching) without excessive verbosity. Minor redundancy in the Returns line, but overall efficient.

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 the presence of many sibling tools and the nested request schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the structure of the request object (the required 'type' and optional 'organizationId'), nor does it clarify how it differs from the specific customer lookup tools. The throttling note is useful but does not compensate for the missing schema explanation.

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 lists possible identifier types (phone, id, email, card) but does not explain the required 'type' field or how these map to it. The 'organizationId' parameter is only hinted via the note about where to get it. This is inadequate for an agent to correctly construct the request object.

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 purpose: 'Get customer information' with a list of possible identifiers (phone, id, email, card, etc.). It identifies the resource and action distinctly, but does not explicitly differentiate from the specific customers__get_customer_by_* siblings, which limits it to a 4.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this general tool versus the more specific customer lookup tools (by phone, by id, etc.). The description only mentions where to get organizationId and throttling/caching advice, which is operational context, not selection criteria.

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