Get customer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether the call is read-only (implied only by 'GET'), not permission requirements, not rate limits, and not the failure mode when the customer number does not exist.

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?

It is short, but this is under-specification rather than earned conciseness. A single bare route fragment leaves the reader with nothing front-loaded except the HTTP verb.

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, no annotations, and an undocumented required parameter, the description should explain what a successful lookup returns and what happens on a miss. None of that is present, so the definition is inadequate for even a simple lookup tool.

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 single parameter is shown only as the path placeholder {number}, which merely echoes the schema property name. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain that this is an exact customer identifier, but it adds no format, example, or meaning beyond the route template.

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 is essentially the tool name restated as an HTTP route: 'GET /customer/{number}.' It conveys retrieval of a customer keyed by number, but adds no verb/resource framing beyond what the name and title already state, and does nothing to separate it from siblings like search_customers or get_customer_product.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling search_customers for non-exact lookups, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer everything about selection from the tool name alone.

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