cyberqp_get_customer_jit_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond the schema by explicitly stating that the tool 'never returns a password or OTP code', which is valuable non-obvious behavior. It also indicates the kind of data returned, though it does not discuss pagination defaults or error 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?

Two tightly constructed sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose and scope; the second adds a crucial limitation and redirects the agent toward the correct use case. 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?

For a status-read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential context: what is returned, the customer-level scope, and a critical guarantee about credentials. It is slightly less complete because it does not mention the optional pagination/filtering behavior or differentiate from cyberqp_check_jit_account_exists, but the schema covers the parameter mechanics.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing that customerId identifies the specific customer. The optional pagination and search parameters are adequately handled by the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('JIT account status'), and the target scope ('for a specific customer'). It also lists what the status includes (existence, enabled/disabled state, metadata), distinguishing it from tenant-level siblings like cyberqp_get_tenant_jit_status.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'use this to check the current state of JIT accounts'. It also provides a clear when-not: 'not to retrieve credentials'. However, it does not name alternative tools for credential retrieval or for simple existence checks, so the guidance stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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