lookup_customer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behaviors. It mentions 'decoded and explained' but does not clarify what decoding entails, authorization requirements, rate limits, or side effects (though likely read-only). Minimal behavioral context.

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 well-formed sentence that conveys the essential purpose without extraneous words. Efficient and clear.

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?

The tool has an output schema which may cover return values, but the description's phrase 'decoded and explained' is vague. For a simple lookup with one parameter, it is adequate but lacks details on result structure or edge cases.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description adds meaning by specifying that the 'query' parameter can be a customer number or name fragment. This helps the agent understand the parameter's purpose beyond the bare schema, though format expectations are not detailed.

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 finds customers by number or name fragment, and that results are decoded and explained. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_customer_credit or check_item_availability.

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 implies when to use the tool (to find customers) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings. No exclusions or context for choosing this over other customer-related tools.

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