getCustomerSummaryRetrieve a customer's master data with total open balance and open ticket count, answering "tell me about customer X" questions with figures computed deterministically in SQL.
Returns master data for one customer plus their total open balance and open ticket count. Use this for "tell me about customer X" questions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| customer | Yes | Customer name or numeric ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the payload (balance plus ticket count in one call) but says nothing about behavior when the customer is ambiguous or not found, or about the cost of the aggregate lookup.
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 short sentences with zero filler; the returned payload is front-loaded and the usage cue follows. Every clause carries 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?
With no output schema, the description does its job by naming what comes back (master data, open balance, open ticket count). It leaves "master data" unenumerated and omits not-found behavior, but for a one-parameter read tool with clear annotations this is nearly sufficient.
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% and the single parameter already documents "Customer name or numeric ID." The description adds no matching rules, partial-name behavior, or case sensitivity beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (returns) and resource (master data for one customer) and enumerates the extra payload: total open balance and open ticket count. That composite scope implicitly separates it from the narrower siblings (getOpenTickets, getPaymentHistory), though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
"Use this for 'tell me about customer X' questions" gives a concrete selection trigger, which is more than most definitions offer. It stops short of stating when to prefer the narrower siblings (e.g. detailed invoice history) or any prerequisites such as needing an exact customer identifier.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.