get_customer_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently indicates a read-only retrieval operation ('Retrieves') and the authenticated-account context. It doesn't detail error scenarios or authorization requirements, but for a parameterless read tool, this is sufficient.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. It avoids redundancy and clearly links the output to downstream use.

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?

This is a simple, parameterless tool with an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It fully covers what the tool does, the context (authenticated account), and why it matters (dependency for other tools), making it 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description appropriately adds semantic context about the ID's format and purpose without needing to explain any input fields.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('unique Google customer ID for the authenticated account'). It also mentions the ID's common 'C' prefix, making it distinct from sibling tools that perform management actions.

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 provides clear usage context by noting the ID is 'required as a parameter for many other Chrome management tools,' implying this tool should be called first to obtain the ID. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the simple bootstrap nature makes that unnecessary.

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