support.get_customer_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what information is retrieved and how to search, but does not disclose behaviors such as behavior when no parameters are provided, parameter precedence when both are given, or return format (no output schema). This is a moderate level of transparency for a simple read operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Retrieve customer account profiles'), and includes the key scope and search methods without any unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 lookup tool, the description covers the main purpose and parameters. However, the absence of an output schema and the optional nature of both parameters leave ambiguity about return structure and behavior when no parameters are supplied. The description is adequate but not fully complete for all context.

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% because both 'email' and 'customer_id' have descriptions. The description adds only the 'or' relationship between the two parameters, confirming they are alternative search keys. This adds marginal value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves customer account profiles, specifying the content (contact information, subscription plan, account notes) and the search keys (customer ID or email). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like support.read_tickets or support.search_knowledge_base.

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 clearly implies usage for looking up customer profile information by ID or email, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the domain-specific purpose makes the appropriate use case obvious.

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