get_customer_property_values

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states that properties with no value set and inactive properties are absent from the result, and describes the return format (Property UUID mapped to values). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond what the schema provides.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, then an Args section and a Returns section. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy or fluff.

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 read tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the behavior for missing values, the return mapping, and the optional parameter. No critical gaps are evident.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains both parameters: customer_id as the UUID of the customer and property_id as an optional UUID that can be omitted to read all properties. This adds significant meaning that the bare schema lacks.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Read') and a clear resource ('custom property values a customer holds'), which precisely distinguishes it from siblings like set_customer_property_values (write) and list_customer_properties (definition listing). It also states the optional scope property_id, further clarifying what is read.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for reading a customer's property values, and provides guidance on the optional property_id ('omit to read them all'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the read/write distinction with set_customer_property_values is implied by the sibling list.

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