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 full burden. It describes the returned data but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or disclose any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or data freshness. For a read operation, this is minimally adequate but could be improved by mentioning read-only behavior.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the action, input, and output fields. There is no unnecessary repetition or verbose language. Every part of the sentence adds value.

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 tool has a single required parameter and no output schema, the description lists the key return fields (plan, health score, risk level, seats, activity trend, recent alerts), which is fairly complete for a profile tool. It could mention error cases or format of the output, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returns.

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 ('customer') with 100% description coverage in the schema itself. The description adds the clarification 'by id or name', but this is already hinted in the schema description. The description does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('customer'), lists the return fields (plan, health score, risk level, seats, activity trend, recent alerts), and distinguishes from siblings like get_at_risk_customers (which returns a list) and get_active_alerts (which is about alerts). It clearly states what the tool does and how it differs.

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 explains how to identify the customer ('by id or name') and implies use when needing a single customer's full profile. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., when you need a list of customers, use get_at_risk_customers). The guidance is clear but lacks exclusionary context.

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