find_customer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return fields but does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, what happens when no match is found, or any error behavior. The word 'find' implies a read operation, but that is not explicit, and no other behavioral context is given.

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 two short sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately follows with the return fields. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and wastes no space.

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 that an output schema exists, the return fields are defined externally. The description covers the purpose, the query parameter's role, and the key output. Missing are any caveats (e.g., not-found behavior, permission requirements) and explicit usage guidance, but for a simple lookup tool, the core information is present. It falls short of a perfect score because it lacks any statement about read-only behavior or edge cases, which would be more important given the absence of annotations.

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 a single 'query' string parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description adds the meaning that the query can be a name or an ID, which is helpful but minimal. It does not specify matching semantics (exact vs. partial, case sensitivity, etc.), so while it compensates partially, it leaves significant gaps.

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 states a clear action ('Find customers') and the resource (customers), with the search criteria ('by name or id') and the returned fields. It is specific and understandable, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like customer_tickets or customer_invoices. The purpose is clear, though sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent to a different tool. Given the sibling list, there is no explicit direction, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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