Customers Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context the annotations do not: the underlying HTTP verb/path, the required OAuth scope read_customers, and the API version — an agent can predict auth failures before calling.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the purpose, and nothing is padded or repeated. The trailing HTTP/version metadata is templated but still carries usable information.

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?

Three parameters are all documented, annotations cover safety, and the scope/version lines round out the operational picture, so an agent can call this correctly. Some minor gaps remain around not-found behavior and what a customer object contains, but no output schema was promised.

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 'id', 'fields' and 'response_format' all documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about accepted ID formats or fields syntax beyond what the schema already states.

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?

"Get one customer" states a specific verb and singular resource, which cleanly separates it from the sibling tiendanube_customers_list. It stops short of explicitly naming the list/update/delete siblings as alternatives, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 singular framing implies the use case (fetch a known customer by ID), and the required scope is stated, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no pointer to tiendanube_customers_list for browsing or tiendanube_customers_update for changes.

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