get_customer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which cover the safety profile. The description adds the HTTP method and endpoint path, but reiterates the read-only nature already present. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, rate limits) are disclosed. The description does not contradict 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?

The description is relatively concise (5 lines) and front-loaded with the purpose and endpoint. It uses visual cues (emoji, bold) for clarity. Minor redundancy exists (two sentences about retrieving a customer), but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose (retrieve customer), idempotency (read-only), and endpoint. It does not describe the return format, but given the lack of output schema, this omission is acceptable. The tool is simple enough that the description feels complete.

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 coverage is 100% with a single required 'id' parameter described in the schema. The description does not add any further meaning about the parameter (e.g., format, example). Baseline is 3 because schema covers parameters, but the description contributes no extra semantic value.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'customer' (e-commerce customer). It includes the HTTP method and endpoint path, making the purpose unambiguous. Among siblings, it is distinct as the only tool for retrieving a single customer by ID.

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 indicates it is a read-only operation that does not modify the account. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'list_all_customers' or 'get_contact'. The context implies use for a specific customer ID, but lacks clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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