Customer order history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating lookup keys ('id, email or partial name') and the return characteristic 'line items already joined.' It does not disclose multi-match handling or output ordering, but these are less critical for a read-only lookup tool.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. The verb-led structure front-loads the main action, and the clause about line items adds key return information efficiently.

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 read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate context: what resource is queried, by what keys, and what the result includes. Minor gaps include behavior for multiple customer matches and parameter precedence, but the description is still sufficient for basic usage.

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 50%; description partially compensates by naming 'id, email or partial name' as lookup criteria. However, email and customer_id formats are not described, and the description does not clarify behavior when multiple parameters are supplied or when partial names match multiple customers. Name semantics are fully covered in the schema.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'look up' and resource 'customer' with clear return value: 'return their orders with line items already joined.' Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_products and sales_summary, which are product/revenue-focused, not customer-focused.

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?

Description implies usage for retrieving a customer's order history but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not compare against sibling tools like search_products or sales_summary, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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