get_customer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what the name and schema state (e.g., no mention of 'not found' handling, response shape, or error conditions). With no added context beyond annotations, this earns a low score.

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 a single, efficiently worded sentence that conveys the essential operation without filler. It earns the highest score for brevity and clarity.

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 simple 1-parameter fetch with an output schema and robust annotations, the description is largely complete. However, given the presence of multiple customer lookup siblings, a mention of when to choose this tool over search/find alternatives would improve completeness. Still, the simplicity keeps the gap small.

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 coverage is 0% and the description only says 'by ID', which minimally reinforces that the customer_id parameter is the lookup key. The schema already provides the parameter name and type, so the description adds slight value but doesn't compensate for missing details like format or constraints.

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 'Fetch one customer by ID' uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('customer'), clearly indicating a single-object read by primary key. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_customers or find_customer, which imply broader lookup capabilities.

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 implies usage when you have a specific customer ID and need that exact record. Though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the 'by ID' phrasing provides clear context that differentiates it from search/list tools among siblings.

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