get_customer_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Fetch' signals a read operation and 'full master data record' suggests broad scope, but there is no disclosure about error behavior, authorization needs, or handling of invalid card codes.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the action and result, with no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 1-parameter fetch-by-ID tool, the description covers the core calling contract: what resource is returned and which key identifies it. However, without an output schema or annotations, an agent gets no detail on response shape or edge cases.

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 one required cardCode string with 0% coverage; the description identifies it as the business partner card code and clarifies it applies to both customers and suppliers. This compensates for the bare schema, though it does not mention format or expected source.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('full business partner master data record') and scopes it to both customers and suppliers keyed by cardCode. This clearly distinguishes it from list-style siblings like get_customer_list and get_vendor_list.

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 implies usage when a single record is needed by card code, but it never names alternatives or states when not to use it. There is no explicit guidance such as 'for a list, use get_customer_list', so usage context is only implicit.

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