bokio_get_customer

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The phrase "as Bokio returns it" usefully signals an unnormalized upstream payload, but the description says nothing about error behavior or field shape beyond that hint.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the sibling pointer trails it. Slightly clipped phrasing ("as Bokio returns it") trades a bit of clarity for brevity.

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 carries the burden of describing the return value, and "as Bokio returns it" only vaguely gestures at it. For a single-record fetch this leaves the agent guessing which customer fields come back.

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%, with companyId defaulting documented and customerId's not-found behavior spelled out in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail 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 and resource ("Get one customer by id") and implicitly contrasts with the list sibling by emphasizing singularity. An agent can tell it apart from bokio_list_customers, though the contrast is never stated 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?

The second sentence redirects invoice lookups to bokio_list_invoices, which is genuine routing guidance. However, it never says to use bokio_list_customers first to obtain an id, nor does it exclude any other use case — that pointer only exists in the schema.

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