Get customer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — it does not say what happens when both keys are null, when the customer is not found, or whether remote lookups have limits.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loading the operation and resource. Every word earns its place; nothing is padded.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the read-only annotations cover the safety profile; for a trivial two-parameter lookup the definition is nearly sufficient. The only omission is behavior when neither key is supplied, which prevents a full 5.

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% (both cust_id and cust_num are documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates the same two identifiers and adds no format, mutual-exclusion, or precedence detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Read'), a specific resource ('Kinetic customer'), and the identifier types used for lookup. It does not explicitly contrast against get_sales_order/get_part/get_shipments, but the distinct resource noun makes selection unambiguous without that.

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?

Implies usage by naming the two lookup keys (CustNum or CustID), from which an agent infers this is a single-customer retrieval tool. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of which key to prefer, and no alternatives for lookups by other attributes.

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