get_customer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no not-found behavior, no permission or scope notes, and the "[policy: allow]" prefix is unexplained boilerplate rather than usable behavioral context.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, but the "[policy: allow]" prefix is noise and the sentence is front-loaded with policy metadata rather than the actionable detail an agent needs.

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?

The tool is simple (one string parameter, read-only, output schema present so return values need no explanation), which lowers the bar. Still, the single required parameter is entirely unexplained and no usage context is given, leaving the definition thinner than a lookup tool should be.

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?

There is one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden and fails: it never says what a customer_id is (internal ID, email, external key) or its format. This is the kind of detail that determines whether the call succeeds.

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?

"Get a customer record" names a verb and a resource, but it is close to a restatement of the tool name get_customer and adds only the notion of a single record. It does nothing to distinguish this from siblings such as list_pending, search_tickets, or 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, despite nine siblings including search_tickets (finding customers/tickets by criteria) and delete_customer. The agent must infer that a known customer_id is required before this tool is appropriate.

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