get_customer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output fields, which is useful, but it does not mention read-only behavior, authentication requirements, potential errors, or data freshness. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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, tight phrase with no filler words. It front-loads the resource name and immediately lists the key output fields, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 tool, the description plus schema are enough to understand the broad purpose and required input. However, missing behavioral context and parameter explanation leave notable gaps, especially with no output schema or annotations to supplement the description.

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 schema provides only the parameter name and type (customer_id: string) with zero description coverage. The description does not explain the parameter, its format, or how it identifies the customer. It adds no value beyond the structured schema for the parameter.

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 identifies the resource as a customer profile and enumerates the returned fields (verification status, VIP tier, balance, active bonus). It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieves', but the tool name and field list make the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like get_transactions or list_tickets.

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 usage is implied: this is the tool to call when a customer profile is needed. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or related tools. There is no direct guidance about scenarios.

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