get_customers

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

With no annotations available, the description adds useful behavioral context: the 'readonly-owner' tier indicates safe read access, the 'up to 1000' limit sets expectations, and the endpoint mapping to POST /customer/get clarifies the underlying operation. It does not detail error handling or response structure, but the read-only and limit constraints are significant.

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 concise and front-loaded: the core action is in the first sentence, followed by two compact qualifiers (endpoint mapping and tier). Every element adds useful information without redundancy.

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 tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the function of the include flags, what 'full customer records' entails, or the response format. An agent would lack crucial details for correctly invoking the tool with the optional parameters.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning only for the 'customerIDs' parameter (up to 1000 IDs), but the five 'include*' parameters are not explained; their names suggest boolean flags, yet the description does not clarify their purpose or accepted values. This is a significant gap given the low schema coverage.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('full customer records'), and the input scope ('up to 1000 customer IDs'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_customers by specifying batch retrieval by IDs rather than search.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you have customer IDs and need full records, with a batch limit of 1000. It implies usage for retrieval rather than search, although it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases like search_customers.

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