willys_get_customer_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Hämta' (retrieve) implies a read operation, but the description does not mention required authentication, return format, rate limits, or whether the profile data is cached or real-time. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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 extremely short—a single phrase. While it avoids verbosity, it is under-specified and omits critical operational details. This is not conciseness but incomplete specification, similar to a placeholder.

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 the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter documentation, the one-line description is wholly inadequate. An agent has no information about return values, required authentication state, error conditions, or how to construct the sessionId. The tool is not usable based on this definition alone.

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 input schema has one parameter, 'sessionId', with zero description in the schema (0% coverage). The description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess what sessionId means, how to obtain it, and its role in retrieving customer info. There is no compensation for the schema gap.

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 'Hämta kundprofil' (Retrieve customer profile) clearly states a specific action and resource, directly reflecting the tool name 'willys_get_customer_info'. It is unambiguous, though it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools as there are no other customer-profile getters.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as willys_check_auth or willys_login. The only hint is the tool name itself, which implies usage but does not explain context, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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