pospal_get_customer_extras

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states it queries subsidiary info, but fails to mention any side effects, permissions needed, or what happens if the 'number' is invalid. With no annotations, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 short sentence with no redundancy. However, it lacks structure and omits critical details, so it is not efficiently informative.

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 (1 param, no schema descriptions), the description should at least explain the parameter and briefly note typical use. It fails to do so, leaving the agent without sufficient context to use it correctly.

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 one parameter 'number' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain what 'number' refers to (e.g., customer ID, phone number). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, making it useless for parameter understanding.

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 verb '查' (query) and the resource '会员附属信息' (member subsidiary information), listing specific types. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'pospal_find_customer' which retrieves basic customer info, while this focuses on extras. However, it does not explicitly mention the input parameter.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pospal_find_customer' or 'pospal_list_customers'. No conditions or exclusions provided. The description is too brief to inform decision-making.

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