get_customer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool 'gets detailed information,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose whether any permissions are required, what happens if the customer does not exist, or what specific fields are included in 'detailed information.' This is a significant gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Gets') and the resource ('customer'). It contains no filler or redundant information, making it appropriately sized and well structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally viable but lacks detail about the return format or error behavior. It fails to explain what 'detailed information' entails, leaving the agent uncertain about the expected response. This represents a clear gap, making it a 3 rather than a 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id,' explicitly describing it as 'Shopify Customer GID.' The description adds no additional parameter context, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already fully documents the parameter. No further compensation is needed.

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 uses the specific verb 'gets' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a single customer,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_customers and customer mutation tools. The focus on 'single customer' contrasts with the plural list operation, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_customers or create/update/delete customer. While the name and description imply its use for retrieving one customer's details, there is no mention of appropriate context, exclusions, or fallback options, leaving the agent without clear decision-making support.

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