retrieve_customer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is a retrieval (read-only) and returns 'The Customer', but it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens if not found), authentication requirements, or other side effects. It is adequate for a simple read but lacks depth.

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 with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague wording.

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 simple single-parameter retrieval with an output schema present, the description adequately covers the core behavior, parameter, and return value. It could be improved by mentioning error conditions or when to use it, but those are secondary for a basic CRUD read operation.

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 provides only 'type: string' with no description. The description adds 'UUID of the customer', clarifying the expected format and role of the parameter. While this is helpful, it is minimal and could also be inferred from the parameter name and tool purpose. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('customer') with the scope 'by ID', making it unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_customers, create_customer, update_customer, and delete_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?

Usage is implied: you use this tool when you have a customer ID and need the customer object. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_customers or mention when not to use it, leaving room for ambiguity in more complex workflows.

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