get_customer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds project scope and the single-customer guarantee, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as error behavior, not-found handling, or response shape.

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 short and gets the core purpose across immediately. The bullet restating 'customerKey (required)' is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it is minimal and does not hurt clarity.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it. There is no output schema, but the phrase 'return details' is acceptable for this simple resource lookup.

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 description merely restates that customerKey is required. It adds no extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 clearly states the action ('return details') and the resource ('a single customer'), and the singular phrasing distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_customers' without requiring schema inspection. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 this tool is for when you need details for one customer and already have the customerKey, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over get_customers or when not to use it. No alternative tools are named, so usage guidance is left mostly to inference.

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