customer_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about read-only semantics, permissions, error/not-found behavior, or what 'stored' implies (e.g., persisted vs. draft records). The single phrase hints at persistence but is far from adequate.

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 fragment is short but under-specified rather than concise; there is no front-loaded verb or scope statement, and the four-word phrase cannot earn its place as a complete tool definition.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is the only source of behavioral information and it supplies none. An agent cannot determine return shape, failure modes, or ID provenance from this definition.

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 0% for the single customer_id parameter, and the description adds no meaning: it never explains that customer_id identifies the customer, what format an ID takes, or where to obtain one. It does not compensate for the schema gap at all.

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?

"One stored customer" is a noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name customer_get rather than stating a verb and resource. It weakly implies fetching a single customer (as opposed to customer_list), but an agent learns nothing about what 'get' actually returns or what identifies the customer.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of customer_list as the alternative for multiple records, and no prerequisite or not-found behavior. The only usage signal is the tool name itself.

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