get_customer_address

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

No annotations are provided, but the '[tier: readonly-owner]' tag in the description discloses a read-only safety profile. This adds modest behavioral context, though it doesn't describe return format, permission requirements beyond owner-level, or error behavior. The tier tag partially compensates for missing annotations.

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?

Two sentences total, zero waste. States the action, maps to the endpoint, and tags the safety tier. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-item GET with 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably adequate. It identifies the resource and both parameters via the endpoint mapping. However, with no annotations or output schema, it could add what data the returned address contains or any caveats about ownership scoping, leaving some gap.

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 carries full burden. The description names both parameters in the endpoint path (customer_id, address_id) but doesn't add any type, format, or semantic nuance beyond what the raw schema properties (just 'string' with no descriptions) provide. The path mapping helps but doesn't explain what each ID represents or any constraints.

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 'Get a single address for a customer' with specific verb+resource+scope. It maps to a precise endpoint and distinguishes from siblings like list_customer_addresses and get_customer. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative, so not a 5.

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 usage (retrieve one specific address by IDs) but doesn't state when to use this vs list_customer_addresses or get_customer. The context is implied by the mapping to a specific endpoint but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are named.

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