linear_customer_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond the annotations: no note on behavior for a missing/unknown UUID, no error semantics, no indication of what is returned.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler and no redundancy. It is efficient, though so terse that brevity shades into under-specification rather than being exemplary.

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 one-parameter read tool this is minimally adequate, but there is no output schema, so the description carries some burden for indicating what is returned and what happens on a bad UUID, and it does neither.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single `id` parameter is already documented as "The customer's UUID." The description restates the UUID lookup but adds no format, source, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get one customer") plus the lookup key (UUID), which cleanly separates it from linear_customers_list, linear_customer_create, and linear_customer_update. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation relies on the reader inferring it from the singular noun and verb.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative (linear_customers_list) for discovery-style lookups. The only implied condition is that you already have a UUID, which is never stated.

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