get_customer_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no repetition. The description adds the concrete contents of the profile (fraud_flag, lifetime value, open cases, refunds), which is genuinely useful context about what the read surfaces, but it says nothing about lookup failure behavior or freshness of the aggregates.

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?

Two short sentences, the field inventory front-loaded and the id format second, with no filler. The tradeoff is that the terseness comes partly from omitting a verb and any routing guidance rather than from tight editing.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description does the important remaining work by listing the returned fields and the id format. Missing only not-found behavior and sibling routing, which are minor at this complexity.

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 coverage is 0% for the single account_id parameter, so the description carries the burden. It partially compensates with the format hint 'Account ids look like A-100', which is real value beyond the bare string type, but it does not state whether the id is case-sensitive, whether an alternate id form is accepted, or what happens on a malformed id.

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 names the resource (a unified customer profile) and enumerates the fields it exposes, so the agent knows roughly what comes back. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb and no differentiation from siblings like get_case or get_order, leaving the agent to infer that this is a read of an account record keyed by account_id.

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 guidance at all: no mention of when to pick this over get_case, get_order, or draft_customer_email, and no prerequisites or exclusion conditions. The only inferable cue is that an account id is required.

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